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

At the moment I am still operating on the assumption that the IESG will get 
the user schema document unstuck.  We went through a lot of discussion in 
earlier reviews to arrive at the agreement that we would use that document 
as the basis for those aspects of our LDAP work.
I am loath to attempt to change that conclusion unless the AD informs us 
that the zeilenga document will not be going forward.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 07:57 AM 5/14/2003 -0500, Larry S. Bartz wrote:
>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?
>>>
>
>