Standardization of change sequence number
"Jim Sermersheim" <[email protected]> Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:49:28 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=__PartE5BB6648.0__= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I (and I believe others) would like to see the change sequence number syntax be progressed in a standards-track document. Of those initially interested in this, I believe consensus is that it should be defined as a complex type (using ASN.1). A string encoding would be defined (which would likely look just like the one in draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-xx.txt). Then matching rules would be defined in terms of the complext type (not the string encoding). Do the authors of the relevant LDUP I-Ds want to participate in the act of pulling out the current LdapChangeSequenceNumber, and referring to a new I-D, or would they rather just leave it alone (in order to more quickly achieve last call), and let any new I-D progress without being referred to? Jim --=__PartE5BB6648.0__= Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4933.1800" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Microsoft Sans Serif"> <DIV>I (and I believe others) would like to see the change sequence number syntax be progressed in a standards-track document. Of those initially interested in this, I believe consensus is that it should be defined as a complex type (using ASN.1). A string encoding would be defined (which would likely look just like the one in draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-xx.txt). Then matching rules would be defined in terms of the complext type (not the string encoding).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Do the authors of the relevant LDUP I-Ds want to participate in the act of pulling out the current LdapChangeSequenceNumber, and referring to a new I-D, or would they rather just leave it alone (in order to more quickly achieve last call), and let any new I-D progress without being referred to?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jim</DIV></BODY></HTML> --=__PartE5BB6648.0__=--