Summary of [Models] issues from WG Last Call

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

Here is a list of issues raised and my (as editor) suggested resolution.

1) objectIdentifierMatch on ambiguous name
   http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00044.html

   Replace last paragraph of 1.3 with:
        While the <descr> form is generally preferred, the <numericoid>
        form should be used when an unambiguous short name (descriptor)
        is not available.  See Section 6.2 for additional discussion
        of Short Names (descriptors).

2) Naming Contexts (and Models: naming contexts and the root DSE)
   http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00053.html

   Replace first paragraph of 5.1.2 with:
    The 'namingContexts' attribute lists the context prefixes of the
    naming contexts the server masters or shadows (in part or in whole).
    If the server is a first-level DSA [X.501], it should list (in
    addition) an empty string (indicating the root of the DIT).
    If the server does not master or shadow any information (e.g. it
    is an LDAP gateway to a public X.500 directory) this attribute will
    be absent.  If the server believes it masters or shadows the
    entire directory, the attribute will have a single value, and
    that value will be the empty string (indicating the root of the
    DIT).  This attribute allows a client to choose suitable base
    objects for searching when it has contacted a server.

  and then noting in Changes the change to first-level DSA case.

3) Structural Object Class (and governingStructureRule)
   http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00055.html

   Request to LDAP descriptions of 'structuralObjectClass'
   and, subsequently, 'governingStructureRule' descriptions.
   Beyond scope.  No action.  (Note: author considers the lack
   of these descriptions a technical omission and will re-raise
   issue at a more appropriate time.)

4) Subclassing (attribute list inheritance)
   http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00057.html

   It was requested that Section 2.4 be clarified as to
   effects of subclassing on MUST/MAY lists.  As Section 2.4
   already includes the statement
        As an entry of a class must meet the requirements of
       each class it belongs to, it can be said that an object
       class inherits the sets of allowed and required attributes
       from its superclasses.
   No action.

5) Subclassing (additional subclassing imperatives)
   http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00057.html

  It was noted that Section 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 includes restrictions
  up subclassing not explicitly stated in X.501.  The author
  considers the lack of such statements in X.501 as a technical
  omission as such subclassing makes little sense.  No action.

6) aliases
   http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00075.html

  Clarification was requested regarding whether naming attributes
  of an alias entry must be present in the alias entry and, if so,
  what schema mechanism allows them to be present.  The following
  clarification and example are to be added:

7) preservation of user information
   http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00078.html
   A request was made to change the value preservation requirement
   to bit perfect.  The current requirement is believed to be
   technically sound and is supported by consensus.  No action.

8) unnecessary numericoids
   http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00080.html
   A request was made to change <numericoid> to <oid> in a
   number of productions as the <descr> form is already
   known.  The current approach is not "broken".  No action.

9) matching rule uses
   http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00083.html
   Request to add comment to 4.1.4.  Comment may confuse
   implementors.  No action.

10) Approx Matching rules
    http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00099.html
    Request to extend Attribute Types to include explicit
    specification of approximate matching rule.  X.500
    uses implication specification. No action.

11) Schema references to undefined entries
    http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00110.html
    Request to clarify whether published schema needs to be complete.
    Add to 4.2: "LDAP clients SHOULD NOT assume a published
    subschema is complete."

12) DIT Content Rules and AUX object classes
    http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00103.html
    Request to add support for a mechanism to specification
    of a DIT content rule to allow any auxiliary class.
    Beyond scope.  No action.

13) Change of Structural Object Class
    http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200301/msg00111.html
    Request to remove statements considered redundant.  No action.

14) Subschema Semantics
    http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200302/msg00008.html
    Request to change subschema semantics from "publish what
    you know" to "publish what you support".  Consensus believed
    to support current semantics.  No action.

Please let the WG know (within the next few days) if I've missed
any issue or if you disagree with the suggested action so that
Bob can declare consensus (or lack thereof).

Kurt (as Editor)