Re: I-D ACTION:draft-zeilenga-ldap-relax-00.txt

On Jul 4, 2011, at 12:47 AM, Michael Ströder wrote:
> I don't know how to get out of the X- prefix issue and RFCs.

Start by drafting an update RFC 4512 which changes
	extensions = *( SP xstring SP qdstrings )

to:
	extensions = *( SP extension SP qdstrings )
	extension = keystring

and updates BCP 64 (RFC 4520) to provide a registry for values of extension with appropriate registration guidelines, including possibly a reservation of values starting with "X-" for private extensions (see apps discussion concerning this practice).


> But I'd consider it very bad if LDAPv3 does not allow any extension of the schema descriptions
> with additional options usable in a newer RFC.

I note that the X- extension restriction was discussed during the LDAPbis development of RFC 4512 with, IIRC, there being insufficient support to make such a change. 

My view is that relax I-D only describes an experiment.   One of the things that might be learned by this experiment is that more detailed discovery is needed.  If so, the future standards work can take care of that.   My intent, however, is that the relax experiment not be itself an experiment in how to provide detailed discovery (which might be something to experiment with before standardizing a facility for detailed discovery).

I'm willing to make a few minor editorial changes to the I-D and then submitting it to the RFC Editor for publication on the Experimental track in the Independent Submission.  If the consensus of the IETF is, however, that the IETF rather develop a standard in this area, I have no objection to the IETF using my I-D as a basis for that work.  However, I seriously doubt the IETF has enough energy in the LDAP arena to do much LDAP work (as evident by the progress of various LDAP I-Ds), and in absence of enough energy within the IETF, we continue to encourage independent advancement in the LDAP space.

-- Kurt