RE: Standardization of change sequence number
"Steven Legg" <[email protected]> Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:15:58 +1100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C3A994.761D1FE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim, As editor of the URP document, I don't mind changing that document to reference a proposed standard definition for the change sequence number in the form outlined below. To avoid slowing the LDUP publication schedule, the CSN document would have to be produced immediately. Regards, Steven -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim Sent: Wednesday, 12 November 2003 7:49 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Standardization of change sequence number 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 ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C3A994.761D1FE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4807.2300" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style=3D"MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Microsoft Sans Serif"> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D682181822-11112003><FONT face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff>Jim,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D682181822-11112003><FONT face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D682181822-11112003><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff>As editor of=20 the URP document, I don't mind changing that document to reference=20 a</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D682181822-11112003><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff>proposed=20 standard definition for the change sequence number in the form=20 outlined</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D682181822-11112003><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff>below. To=20 avoid slowing the LDUP publication schedule, the CSN document=20 would</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D682181822-11112003><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff>have to be=20 produced immediately.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D682181822-11112003><FONT face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D682181822-11112003><FONT face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff>Regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D682181822-11112003><FONT face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff>Steven</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px = solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT=20 face=3DTahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20 [email protected] = [mailto:[email protected]]<B>On Behalf=20 Of </B>Jim Sermersheim<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, 12 November 2003 = 7:49=20 AM<BR><B>To:</B> [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> Standardization = of=20 change sequence number<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV>I (and I believe others) would like to see the change sequence = number=20 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=20 complex type (using ASN.1). A string encoding would be defined (which = would=20 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=20 encoding).</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Do the authors of the relevant LDUP I-Ds want to participate in = the act=20 of pulling out the current LdapChangeSequenceNumber, and referring to = a new=20 I-D,<SPAN class=3D682181822-11112003><FONT face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff> </FONT></SPAN>or would they rather just = leave it=20 alone (in order to more quickly achieve last call), and let any new = I-D=20 progress without being referred to?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Jim</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C3A994.761D1FE0--