[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: Refering to X.500 editions
I'm not sure of the answers to these questions. I will follow up with Hoyt
and report back.
-- Skip
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Dally [mailto:kdally@mitre.org]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 9:56 AM
To: Slone, Skip
Cc: ietf-ldapbis
Subject: Re: Refering to X.500 editions
Hi Skip!
The fourth edition has been approved, but not published, as far as I can
tell.
Does out-of-maintenance mean that the second edition will not be available
from ITU and ISO/ANSI? Removal of the approved draft text from the
OSIDirectory server is usually an accurate signal. I think that would be
the biggest concern.
Thanks,
Kathy
"Slone, Skip" wrote:
>
> Kathy,
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, when the fourth edition was approved earlier this
> year, the second edition (1993) went out of maintenance, meaning no
> further defects will be processed on it. Is there likely to be a
> problem referencing an out-of-maintenance standard as the base?
>
> If it is a problem, we would need to check with Hoyt to confirm my
> understanding of the maintenance status before making any changes.
>
> -- Skip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathy Dally [mailto:kdally@mitre.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 2:33 PM
> To: ietf-ldapbis
> Subject: Refering to X.500 editions
>
> Hi All!
>
> In RFC 2256 the X.500 reference is to 1996. Unfortunately, this is
> not an official date (see below). Since 1997 is closer to 1996 than
> 1993, the draft replacement for RFC 2256
> (<draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema-00.txt>) refers to X.500 (1997). In
> fact, RFC 2256 includes some attributes that were introduced in X.520
> (1997). However, other LDAPv3 core RFCs refer to X.500 (1993).
>
> In order to align the replacement RFCs, I propose to cite X.500 (1993)
> in the title and references of
> <draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema-01.txt>.
> In addition, X.520 (1997) should be a separate reference in the I-D, to be
> referred to when describing the new attributes.
>
> Does this make sense? Please let me know.
>
> Below is material about the different X.500 editions and their ISO/IEC
> 9594 twins. Credit is given to Hoyt Kesterson, ISO/IEC 9594 Editor,
> for most of the information. I hope this will be useful to the WG.
>
> Thanks,
> Kathy Dally
>
> ----------------
>
> Although the X.500 Recommendations and ISO/IEC 9594 were aligned in
> the first edition and identical ever since, the official dates on the
> standards are different:
>
> * X.500 Recs (ITU) date is the date of approval.
>
> * ISO/IEC 9594 date is the date of publication.
>
> Since a considerable amount of preparation is done between approval
> and publication, the dates of the two standards have been different:
>
> * first edition: X.500 (1988) and ISO/IEC 9594:1990
>
> * second edition: X.500 (1993) and ISO/IEC 9594:1995
>
> * third edition: X.500 (1997) and ISO/IEC 9594:1998
>
> * fourth edition, currently being published: X.500 (2001)
> and ISO/IEC 9594:2001,
> except for X.509 (2000) and ISO/IEC 9594-8:2000
>
> Note that ISO/IEC also uses "edition" to mean the "issue number" of
> the part of 9594. This is the meaning of "Edition" on the face of
> ISO/IEC 9594 parts. The key is the DATE.
>
> The first edition (overall) includes these recommendations and
> standard
> parts:
>
> * X.500 - ISO/IEC 9594-1
>
> * X.501 - ISO/IEC 9594-2
>
> * X.509 - ISO/IEC 9594-8
>
> * X.511 - ISO/IEC 9594-3
>
> * X.518 - ISO/IEC 9594-4
>
> * X.519 - ISO/IEC 9594-5
>
> * X.520 - ISO/IEC 9594-6
>
> * X.521 - ISO/IEC 9594-7
>
> The second edition added X.525 - ISO/IEC 9594-9:1995, 1st ed.
>
> The third edition added X.530 - ISO/IEC 9594-10:1998, 1st ed.
>
> The fourth edition does not have any additional recommendations or
> parts.