[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FW: RFC-to-be: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16
Thanks for the update Patrik. So we now have all the data
I think.
We're discussing this in IESG now, Ned also has a Defer
and is discussing further with Kurt.
Hope we can get this doc in acceptable shape for approval soon.
Thanks,
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com]
> Sent: woensdag 23 april 2003 11:20
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Ted Hardie; iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: 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)
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>