Re: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-16.txt

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

At 09:18 AM 7/7/2003, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>>> Olivier Dubuisson <Olivier.Dubuisson@francetelecom.com> 7/3/03
>12:52:50 AM >>>
>>Dear Jim,
>>
>>regarding Section 9 of 
>><http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol-16.txt>
>>please update the dates of X.680 and X.690 to 2002, for it is the only
>
>>version in force for the ASN.1 standard.
>
>I note also that [Syntaxes] points to the 1997 version of X.690, and
>[Models] points to the 1997 version of X.680 (though [Syntaxes] points
>to the 2002 version). I don't remember what we decided to do with the
>dates of the ITU-T documents, but likely we should apply the changes to
>all the documents.

For X.680/X.690, referencing the latest versions is not problematic.
For other ITU-T documents, in particular X.500 series documents, we
need to stick with 2nd edition revisions (e.g, circa 1993).

>>Would it be acceptable to you if the ASN.1 module defined in your I-D
>is 
>>checked and pretty-printed by the ITU-T, and published as part of the
>
>>module database on their website at 
>><http://www.itu.int/itu-t/asn1/database>?

Verification of the ASN.1 using available checkers would
be appreciated.

>My read of the copyright statement on the last page permits you to
>copy, prepare, and publish a derivative work (so yes)

I note that as the ASN.1 is often used and distributed
separately from the RFC, we likely should apply the MIB
copyright guidelines:
   http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/MIB-COPYRIGHT.txt
so that the ISOC copyright appears in the ASN.1.

Kurt