RE: [Fwd: Re: Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16 .txt]

As I stated a week (or two) ago, I am working this in the IESG.

Kurt, your document has NOT yet been approved. WE're working on it.
If you go to the ballow page (which you can do from the view details)
then you will see that there is one D (Defer), namely Ned Freed.
He asked for extra time to review... and he will do so before 
May 1st. At that time (I hope) the doc can pass, unless NED finds
something serious.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: maandag 21 april 2003 22:09
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Policy] Approved:
> draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt] 
> 
> 
> Larry,
> 
> Like any other RFC-to-be, draft-ietf-policy-core-schema
> has to wait on its normative references.
> 
> draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema is still an active "work
> in progress" ("expire" dates can be misleading as "in process"
> I-Ds don't expire).  See the I-D data tracker for current
> status.  
> 
> draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema appears (from the available
> I-D data tracker details) to have been approved by the IESG.
> So this thread seems moot.
> 
> > This situation can be remedied by a minor edit of the PCLS draft.
> 
> No.
> 
> PCLS defines elements of LDAP schema dependent on LDAP
> matching rules which, at present, are not specified
> in any standard track document.  While X.520(93) defined
> X.500 corresponding matching rules, it does not define
> any LDAP matching rules.  As X.500 matching rules have
> to be adapted for use in LDAP (as demonstrated in RFC
> 2252), referencing X.520 is not sufficient.
> 
> The PCLS's normative reference to draft-zeilenga-ldap-
> user-schema is correct and proper.  No action is needed
> by the Policy WG.
> 
> Kurt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Policy mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/policy
>