Re: Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt

I raised the following points last week, but didn't get a rise
out of anybody...

draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16 uses three matching rules which
haven't been explicitly defined as standard LDAP matching rules. They
are booleanMatch, integerOrderingMatch, and octetStringOrderingMatch.
These matching rules are the subject of draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-
16's dependence upon draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema.

What does "adapted for use in LDAP" mean for those matching rules?
According to draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema, the "adaptation" is
little more than a restatement of the X.520 definitions. Obviously,
X.520 provides the consensus-supported definitions for booleanMatch,
integerOrderingMatch, and octetStringOrderingMatch.

Some LDAP-conformant server implementations already support
booleanMatch, integerOrderingMatch, and octetStringOrderingMatch in
conformance with their X.520 definitions. Does it matter that these
X.520-defined matching rules are not yet defined in an LDAP-specific
RFC? The server doesn't care. The schema doesn't care. The applications
which use the server and the schema don't care, either.

Rough consensus and working code, right? How could consensus get any
better for these three matching rules than it already is? I realize that
Kurt, the ldapbis WG, and the IETF are working very hard to make LDAP
more concise, precise, and complete. This is Good Work. But in the case
of draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16 and these three matching rules, if
the subject of the normative reference at issue here isn't immediately
forthcoming, there really isn't a good reason for draft-ietf-policy-
core-schema-16 to wait any longer.

If draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema still has serious issues, why not
defer to pragmatism, drop the reference, and move on?

Larry


Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote, On 05/05/03 12:59:
> RFC-Editor (and policy FW WG)
> 
> As far as my current understanding of the issues, it is NOT
> acceptable to remove this normative reference.
> 
> I am working in the IESG to try and get that normative document
> approved. But there are still serious issues with it, so things
> are not going smooth/fast.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: RFC Editor [mailto:[email protected]]
>>Sent: maandag 5 mei 2003 19:35
>>To: Bert Wijnen; Randy Bush
>>Cc: [email protected]; Joel M. Halpern; Ed Ellesson; RFC Editor;
>>[email protected]
>>Subject: Re: [Policy] Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt
>>
>>
>>Bert and Randy,
>>
>>Could you please let us know if removal of the normative reference is
>>an acceptable resolution to unblocking
>><draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt>? 
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>RFC Editor
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:38:43AM -0500, Larry S. Bartz wrote:
>>
>>>Larry S. Bartz wrote, On 04/10/03 07:26:
>>>
>>>>It has been more than five months since we were advised that the
>>>>PCLS was approved by the IESG. Why hasn't the RFC been published?
>>>>
>>>


-- 
--
#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
# Larry Bartz                           |                              |
#  [email protected]      | Ooo, ooo,                    |
#                                       | Ooo, ooo, oooooo!            |
#                                       | I've got a gnu attitude!     |
#  voice (317) 226-7060                 |                              |
#  FAX   (317) 226-6378                 |                              |
#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|