[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Syntax open issues
Kathy listed a number of "topics yet to be addressed". My comments:
> Paragraph 2.2.3 - Should attribute syntaxes be allowed to be referenced
> by a common name, and if so, where should the name come from? An
> optional NAME has been added to the BNF for SyntaxDescription in
> paragraph 2.2.4.
I posted a separate message regarding this issue.
> Paragraph 2.2.3 - Should any syntaxes listed in the table be removed?
For clarity, I suggest only those syntaxes which are (fully)
specified in the I-D be listed.
> Should any new syntaxes be added?
In general, no. Syntaxes are features. We cannot add new features.
> How does the data model draft <draft-wahl-ladpv3-defns-00.txt> affect
> this draft?
In short, it doesn't. The yet to be produced "LDAP Overview /
Data Model" I-D might, that depends on what this I-D ends up
looking like.
> Section 3 - Should all listed syntaxes from paragraph 2.2.3 be
> detailed in this section?
The table should be trimmed to just those syntaxes which are
specified in the "core" specification. We must avoid adding
new syntaxes (syntaxes are features).
I note as well that we need to trim some of the syntaxes, in
particular X.509 certificate syntaxes, which were specified in
rfc2252 for specification and/or implementation report issues.
> Section 6 - Recognized list of Object classes needs to be reconciled
> with updated RFC 2256 and the data model draft.
I am not sure what list you are referring to.
> Section 7 - Proper security statement needs to be formulated.
Yes.