[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FW: RFC-to-be: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16

On onsdag, apr 23, 2003, at 11:04 Europe/Stockholm, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

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.

Here is the last things I have on the user-schema...

   paf



Begin forwarded message:


From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: tor okt 31, 2002  01:52:32 Europe/Stockholm
To: patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Cc: ned.freed@mrochek.com, bwijnen@lucent.com
Subject: draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema

Patrik,

I noticed Steven had the comment:
  Does this depend on stringprep for comparisons? Should it?

X.520 defines how comparisons are to be done.  While X.520
is known to "hand wave" when it comes to the details of
how to comparison of Unicode strings, the issues need to
be addressed by revising X.520 and then adapted for use
in LDAP.

The draft-zeilenga-ldapbis-strmatch outlines one
possible approach.  This approach is being considered
by the responsible ISO/ITU study group.  I suspect it
will be some time before the ISO/ITU reaches agreement
on an approach.  Additional time will then be needed
to "adapt" whatever X.520 revision ISO/ITU approves for
use with LDAP.  This adaptation should be addressed by
LDAPBIS (as it directly impacts its work).

I note that draft-ietf-policy-core-schema depends on
draft-zeilenga-user-schema.  Now that we've resolved
the problems with draft-ietf-policy-core-schema, I
think all would like to see it published soon.  Having
it wait for ldapbis-strmatch would be horrible.

Hence, I recommend progressing draft-zeilenga-user-schema
despite the X.520 "hand waving" on the grounds it's
considered useful, necessary, and timely.  I suggest IESG
note be attached to the I-D which states that the this I-D
is being progressed despite the X.520 / LDAP "technical
omission" and that implementors should note that future
changes to X.520 and the LDAP TS in this area will be
necessary before the document can progress to Draft
Standard status.

Kurt



Begin forwarded message:
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Date: sön apr 13, 2003 23:44:05 Europe/Stockholm
To: iesg-only@ietf.org
Subject: [Iesg-only] draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema

I am likely to vote DEFER on this document. I really want to put a longer hold on it, but I guess I will do that with a DISCUSS if > needed.

Here is the political situation. The LDAP folks have been trying to figure out the best way to store certificates and CRLs. This document is the winning proposal, but the other proposal is not going away quietly. I really want there to be only one answer. The alternate proposal wants to publish their solution as either Informational or Experimental. I am strongly opposed.

Client vendors lose if we let two RFCs be published, regardless of the labels on them. If the LDAP server uses the technique, then the poor client must include code to get the certificates and CRLs that are needed. This is not a huge deal for LDAP Browsers because the human does much of the navigation. It is a huge deal for embedded clients.

The story is not really a simple one. Everyone agrees that the document describes the correct long-term answer. However, LDAP servers do not support it today. The alternative can be implemented on currently deployed servers. I see that both have pros. Yet, I see the client bloat as a much bigger con.

The only leverage that I see is to refuse to publish anything as an RFC until the LDAP community can really agree. Maybe the people who have been on the IESG longer can suggest ways that this type of situation has been handled in the past.

Russ

_______________________________________________
Iesg-only mailing list
Iesg-only@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iesg-only


Begin forwarded message:


From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Date: mån apr 14, 2003  00:19:19 Europe/Stockholm
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: iesg-only@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Iesg-only] draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema

how come iesg-only?

being responsible for holding the hard-ass position, i am a strong
proponenet of the simpler long-term solution.

so i would suggest we publish the 'right' approach as a proposed
standard.  let the other be experimental with a clear iesg warning
at the front on the order of "this is not recommended, is a short
term hack, may not work, need not be used or implemented, renders
ineffective all birth control methods within a 10km radius, ..."

allowing scott to channel through me, he would publish both and
"let the market decide."  in iesg jargon, this became known as the
'thousand flowers' approach.  as you might guess, he and i did not
see eye to eye on this.  but he still channels through me a lot.

randy

_______________________________________________
Iesg-only mailing list
Iesg-only@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iesg-only



Begin forwarded message:
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: sön apr 20, 2003 09:57:48 Europe/Stockholm
To: Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: iesg-only@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Iesg-only] draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema



--On onsdag, april 16, 2003 17:01:35 +0200 Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com> wrote:


On söndag, apr 13, 2003, at 23:44 Europe/Stockholm, Russ Housley wrote:

The only leverage that I see is to refuse to publish anything as an
RFC until the LDAP community can really agree.  Maybe the people who
have been on the IESG longer can suggest ways that this type of
situation has been handled in the past.
We have done so before. Last time regarding something called "security".

We said "No RFC's published before one about Secuirty".

It almost killed LDAP work in the IETF...

paf (was this a bcc, or am I still on IESG-only?)


P.S. I am back reading paf@cisco.com mail, after I had problems with
one-time-password things since Friday morning last week.
you were removed from iesg-only on Monday.... at last!


            Harald










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)