[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FW: RFC-to-be: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16
What happened (and where I am (or better RFC-Editor is) stuck
is the the policy doc is now blocked by a normative reference to
the draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema-06.txt and on that one I
am not sure what the history is.
Thanks,
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com]
> Sent: woensdag 23 april 2003 7:27
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Ted Hardie; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: FW: RFC-to-be: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16
>
>
> The history seems to have been:
>
> (1) OID problems, resolved by help from Roland Hedberg and
> Kurt Zeilenga
> (2) Reference problems to draft-ietf
>
> (3) IANA was not happy until Oct -02. See below.
> (4) Then I don't know why it was stuck.
>
> paf
>
> > From: "IANA" <iana@icann.org>
> > Date: tor okt 31, 2002 00:29:37 Europe/Stockholm
> > To: Patrik Faltstrom <paf@cisco.com>, "Wijnen, Bert \(Bert\)"
> > <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> > Cc: "Iesg-Secretary \(E-mail\)" <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>, "Iesg
> > \(E-mail\)" <iesg@ietf.org>
> > Subject: RE: Back on agenda please:
> > draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt
> >
> > Patrik, Bert,
> >
> > Apologies for the delay. The answer that Kurt/Bob gave
> > seemed fine to me.
> >
> > I understand the IANA instructions to add
> > 6 pcimSchema Policy Core Information Model LDAP Schema RFCxxxx
> > to iso.org.dod.internet.directory (1.3.6.1.1).
> >
> > Then a new registry would be created for pcimSchema (1.3.6.1.1.6),
> > and all the registrations outlined in section 8.2 of this
> > document would then be added, having 6 replace the
> "IANA-ASSIGNED-OID".
> >
> > If I understand correctly, then remove the disucss.
> >
> > Thanks (and again-apologies for the delay),
> >
> > Michelle
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrik Faltstrom [mailto:paf@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:17 AM
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: Iesg-Secretary (E-mail); Iesg (E-mail); IANA (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: Back on agenda please:
> > draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt
> >
> >
> > On onsdag, okt 30, 2002, at 15:04 Europe/Stockholm, Wijnen,
> Bert (Bert)
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry to have to do it this way. But I have been trying (since
> >> our IESG/IAB retreat) to get response from IANA (and then paf)
> >> that IANA concerns have been addresses (per below).
> >
> > I promised to just hold the discuss from IANA, so I am also
> waiting for
> > an OK from IANA.
> >
> > I.e. my original issues are gone.
> >
> > paf
> >
>
>
> On torsdag, apr 10, 2003, at 00:03 Europe/Stockholm, Wijnen, Bert
> (Bert) wrote:
>
> > Makes sense to me. Maybe Steve can recall what his issue
> > was?
> >
> > Can you get it on next telechat please. That policy doc has been
> > in RFCC-Editor queue for a loooonnnggg time already
> >
> > Paf... what is your recollection of this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bert
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardie@qualcomm.com]
> >> Sent: woensdag 9 april 2003 23:58
> >> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> >> Cc: paf@cisco.com; iesg@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: FW: RFC-to-be: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Bert,
> >> Shifted the cc set to paf and current IESG in order to discuss a
> >> tracker issue. Checking the state in the tracker, it shows
> >> as one of
> >> the ones that
> >> shifted to me in the transition. It's kind of in an odd
> >> state, though,
> >> as
> >> it shows in "waiting for writeup", but the notes indicate
> >> that there was
> >> a write-up. Further, there is a ballot, but it only has two votes:
> >> Patrik's
> >> yes, and discuss from Steve, noting the stringprep issue.
> >> I'd suggest we re-ballot this one. I don't see
> >> additional problems
> >> with it based on a cursory review, but I do think we will
> >> have to insert
> >> IESG text essentially saying that we're approving it for
> publication
> >> knowing it will have to recycle at proposed once the
> stringprep issue
> >> shakes out. Given the state of the ballot, I think it would
> >> be easier
> >> to
> >> just put this back through the ballot to get buy off on that.
> >> Does that make sense to you,and to others?
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> Ted
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 02:43 PM, Wijnen, Bert
> (Bert) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Can Patrik or one of the current APPS ADs update me
> >>> on where we are with this draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema
> >>>
> >>> It seems that one of my WG's RFC-to-be is hanging in
> >>> that because of a normative reference.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Bert
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.org]
> >>> Sent: woensdag 9 april 2003 23:17
> >>> To: remoore@us.ibm.com
> >>> Cc: Joyce Reynolds; bwijnen@lucent.com; ellesson@mindspring.com;
> >>> john.strassner@intelliden.com; randy@psg.com;
> >>> rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org;
> >>> rmoats@lemurnetworks.net; Ted Hardie; ned.freed@mrochek.com;
> >>> paf@cisco.com
> >>> Subject: Re: RFC-to-be: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Bob,
> >>>
> >>> Bob Moore wrote:
> >>>> Hi Kurt,
> >>>> This is a reference to that document of yours that defined
> >> one or two
> >>>> matching rules that weren't defined elsewhere. What
> >> should we refer
> >>>> to
> >>>> now?
> >>>
> >>> draft-ietf-policy-core-schema should continue to reference
> >>> draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema.
> >>>
> >>> draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema is being considered by the IESG
> >>> for publication as a Proposed Status. Details can be found at:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/IESG/EVALUATIONS/draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-
> >>> schema.bal
> >>>
> >>> I note that Steve Bellovin raised a "discuss" which, if I recall
> >>> correctly, I have responded to. Basically, I stated that the
> >>> "stringprep" issue is being addressed by the LDAPBIS WG but
> >>> it will be some time before closure. I suggested that
> >>> draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema go forward as a Proposed Standard,
> >>> possible with an IESG note stating that "stringprep" issues need
> >>> to be addressed before this technical specification will be
> >>> furthered on the Standard Track, so that
> >> draft-ietf-policy-core-schema
> >>> can be published as a Proposed Standard. Otherwise,
> >>> draft-ietf-policy-core-schema will be in REF wait for another
> >>> 6+ months as LDAPBIS needs 3+ months to wrap up its work.
> >>>
> >>> Note: this "stringprep" issue relates directly to the matching
> >>> rule specifications which draft-ietf-policy-core-schema is
> >>> referencing.
> >>>
> >>> Kurt
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Bob
> >>>>
> >>>> Bob Moore
> >>>> WebSphere Advanced Design and Technology
> >>>> WebSphere Platform System House
> >>>> IBM Software Group
> >>>> +1-919-254-4436
> >>>> remoore@us.ibm.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Joyce Reynolds <jkrey@ISI.EDU>
> >>>> 04/09/2003 02:29 PM
> >>>> Please respond to Joyce Reynolds
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> To: john.strassner@intelliden.com, Robert
> >>>> Moore/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, rmoats@lemurnetworks.net,
> >>>> ellesson@mindspring.com
> >>>> cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, bwijnen@lucent.com,
> >>>> randy@psg.com
> >>>> Subject: RFC-to-be:
> draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> The RFC Editor is getting ready to publish:
> >>>> <draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16>
> >>>>
> >>>> In the "Normative References" section, there is a
> document that we
> >>>> cannot account for:
> >>>>
> >>>> [9] K. Zeilenga, ed., "LDAPv3: A
> >> Collection of User
> >>>> Schema",
> >>>>
> >> <draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema-06.txt>, May
> >>>> 2002.
> >>>>
> >>>> What is the current state/status of this reference?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks, Joyce
> >>>> (for RFC Editor)
> >>>
> >>
> >
>