RE: Standardization of change sequence number
"Chris Apple" <[email protected]> Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:42:41 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <002201c3a94c$c60e4b20$d5c8a8c0@D7ST2111> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C3A922.DD384320 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There will more than likely be some slippage from the WG Last Call = schedule discussed during the WG Meeting even if the CSN document is published as soon as possible after the I-D Administrator starts processing I-Ds again. =20 Then the information model document would have to be revised before we = could start the first grouping of WG Last Call documents mentioned during the WG Meeting. =20 As co-chair I'm OK with pulling the CSN content out as a separate standards-track document if: =20 1) It is published as an LDUP WG document rather than an individual contribution. I realize that the rationale is that its applicability is broader than LDUP, but I'm = skittish about suggestions to increase the dependency of the WG's deliverables on documents not = within the control of any WG. This has caused problems before and I don't want to add more of = that type of risk. =20 2) It is submitted to the I-D Editor as soon as possible after they = begin accepting new submissions. =20 3) The new CSN LDUP I-D is included in the WG Last Call grouping of the first document that will reference it, INFOMOD. =20 4) The INFOMOD Document Editors are able to submit the revised INFOMOD = draft within a couple of days of the CSN I-D Action announcement occurring. =20 Keep in mind that if we go that way, we are introducing uncertainty in starting the WG Last Call sequence as discussed during the WG Meeting. This is not really a good = thing from a process perspective, but does seem to be the right thing to do from a document management perspective. =20 I'll wait to see some postings from other WG Members (especially need to hear from the INFOMOD Editors) before making a judgment call on this. This means that the = first grouping WG Last Call won't happen as planned on the Monday after the IETF. =20 INFOMOD Editors: please respond ASAP. =20 Chris Apple=20 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] = On Behalf Of Steven Legg Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:16 AM To: Jim Sermersheim; [email protected] Subject: RE: Standardization of change sequence number =20 Jim, =20 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. =20 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). =20 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? =20 Jim ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C3A922.DD384320 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=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1264" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style=3D"MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Microsoft Sans Serif"> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>There will more than likely be = some slippage=20 from the WG Last Call schedule discussed during</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>the WG Meeting </SPAN><SPAN=20 class=3D000011618-12112003>even if the CSN document is published = </SPAN><SPAN=20 class=3D000011618-12112003>as soon as possible after the I-D=20 Administrator</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>starts processing I-Ds = again.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>Then the information model = document would=20 have to be revised before we could start the first grouping</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>of WG Last Call documents = mentioned during=20 the WG Meeting.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>As co-chair </SPAN><SPAN=20 class=3D000011618-12112003>I'm OK with pulling the CSN content out as a = separate=20 standards-track document if:</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>1) It is published as an LDUP = WG=20 document rather than an individual contribution. I realize that = the</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>rationale is that its = applicability is=20 broader than LDUP, but I'm skittish about suggestions</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>to increase the dependency of the = WG's=20 deliverables on documents not within the control of</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>any WG. This has caused problems = before and=20 I don't want to add more of that type of risk.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>2) It is submitted to the I-D = Editor as soon=20 as possible after they begin accepting new</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>submissions.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>3) The new CSN LDUP I-D is = included in the=20 WG Last Call grouping of the first document</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>that will reference it,=20 INFOMOD.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>4) The INFOMOD Document Editors = are able to=20 submit the revised INFOMOD draft within a</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>couple of days of the CSN I-D = Action=20 announcement occurring.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>Keep in mind that if we go that = way, we are=20 introducing uncertainty in starting the WG Last Call</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>sequence as discussed during the = WG Meeting.=20 This is not really a good thing from a process</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>perspective, but does seem to be = the right=20 thing to do from a document management perspective.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>I'll wait to see some postings = from other WG=20 Members (especially need to hear from the INFOMOD<BR>Editors) before = making a=20 judgment call on this. This means that the first grouping WG Last Call=20 won't</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>happen as planned on the = Monday after=20 the IETF.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>INFOMOD Editors: please = respond=20 ASAP.</SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D000011618-12112003>Chris Apple</SPAN><SPAN=20 class=3D000011618-12112003> </SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr = align=3Dleft><FONT=20 face=3DTahoma>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20 [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] = <B>On=20 Behalf Of </B>Steven Legg<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, November 12, 2003 = 11:16=20 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Jim Sermersheim; [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> = RE:=20 Standardization of change sequence number<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <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=20 of 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=20 Behalf Of </B>Jim Sermersheim<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, 12 November = 2003=20 7:49 AM<BR><B>To:</B> [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> = Standardization=20 of 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=20 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=20 matching rules would be defined in terms of the complext type (not = the=20 string 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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C3A922.DD384320--