PCLS when? [was: Re: Approved: draft-ietf-policy-core-schema-16.txt]

Now it has been *six* months since the PCLS (Policy Core LDAP Schema)
draft entered the RFC Editor's Queue. When will the RFC be published?

I haven't seen a convincing argument for retaining PCLS's dependency
upon draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema.

Larry


Larry S. Bartz wrote, On 05/06/03 11:11:
> Mircea, all,
> 
> Reference to X.520 (for which there is already a normative reference
> in the draft) is the *only* normative reference which is necessary to
> cover the three matching rules.
> 
> X.520 defines booleanMatch, octetStringOrderingMatch, and
> integerOrderingMatch.
> 
> Where draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema speaks of these three matching
> rules, it does little more than re-state X.520. There is no doubt
> about consensus regarding the origins and semantics of booleanMatch,
> octetStringOrderingMatch, and integerOrderingMatch.
> 
> To remove the normative reference to draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema
> is simply to remove a redundancy. Removing the normative reference to
> draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema does not leave draft-ietf-policy-core
> -schema-16 without a normative reference for the three matching rules.
> 
> Larry
> 
> 
> Pana, Mircea wrote, On 05/06/03 10:36:
> 
>> Larry,
>>
>> I don't have a strong opinion about the booleanMatch and wrt. the
>> octetStringOrderingMatch I don't even see where it might be necessary.
>> However, the integerOrderingMatch might be critical to some policy
>> aplications. Therefore, as much as I'd like to see this ID progress to 
>> RFC,
>> I believe that the removal of the normative reference is detrimental 
>> to this
>> document.
>>
>> I know that some Directory vendors already implement these matching 
>> rules.
>> The problem is that, without a normative document, each vendor might
>> implement different behavior for the same rule...
>>
>> Mircea.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Larry S. Bartz [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 2:33 PM
>> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
>> Cc: RFC Editor; Randy Bush; [email protected]; Joel M. Halpern; Ed
>> Ellesson
>> Subject: Re: [Policy] 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
> 
>