[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: schema-07 comments
Hi Hallvard!
As before, see "KLD2:".
Thanks,
Kathy Dally
-----Original Message-----
From: Hallvard B Furuseth
[mailto:h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 5:26 PM
To: Kathy Dally
Cc: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: RE: schema-07 comments
Kathy Dally writes:
>Hallvard B Furuseth:
>> 2.23 postalAddress
>> 2.27 registeredAddress
>
>> "15 Main St., Ottawa, Canada"
>
> Please use the LDAP syntax, "15 Main
> St.$Ottawa$Canada".
> kld: No. The example is a single address.
Eh? "$" doesn't separate different addresses, it
is a separator
between lines of one address. Look at the Postal
Address examples
in [Syntaxes].
> Escaping the ","s is fixed.
What escaping?
KLD2: Oops! I wonder what I was looking at?
Fixed.
>> 2.43 x500UniqueIdentifier
>
>> In X.520 [X.520], this attribute type is
called
>> uniqueIdentifier. This is a different
attribute type from both the
>> "uid" and "uniqueIdentifier" attribute types.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> If you mean an LDAP "uniqueIdentifier" attribute
type, that is not
> defined in this document. Where is it defined?
>
> kld: It is in RFC 1274. However, we are trying
to avoid references to
> that RFC. If "(uniqueIdentifier is specified in
RFC 1274.)", was
> added to the paragraph would that be ok? Would
RFC 1274 have to be
> included as an Informative Reference?
I have no idea. How about:
This is a different attribute type from both the
"uid" and
the obsolete "uniqueIdentifier" LDAP attribute
types.
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^
> Also, see 2.39 in the I-D.
OK:
> The uid attribute type contains computer
system login names
> associated with the object. (Source: RFC
1274,
> RFC 2798). Each name is one value of this
multi-valued attribute.
Hm. I wouldn't call RFC 2798 (inetOrgPerson) a
source for uid, since
it's years newer than the use of uid in RFC 2253.
If you count RFCs
newer than uid as sources, isn't [Schema] itself
just as good a source?
KLD2: Yes, in a sense. That's why uid is
included in [Schema].
As far as I can tell, the source for uid is buried
in RFC 2253 which
says that LDAP 'uid' = X.500 'userid', combined
with RFC 1274 for
'userid'.
KLD2: The name 'uid' is introduced in RFC 2253
(and its successor -DN-xx), but it does not
specify the attribute type. The 'userId'
attribute type is in RFC 1274 and does not exist
in X.500. A definition of 'uid' in a more recent
specification style is given in RFC 2798.
[Schema]
replaces the informative definition of RFC 2798,
as stated in section 1.1.
>> 1.1 Situation
>
>> Section 3.4 of
>> this document supercedes the technical
specification for the 'dc'
> kld: not in my original
Fixed after submission, then. I've just verified
that this sentence is
in the official -07 draft.
KLD2: Huh? I thought you were referring to a
formatting problem. I see that the section should
be "2.4". Is there anything else?
>> 7.1 Normative
>
>> ...[ROADMAP] Zeilenga, K., "LDAP: Technical
> Specification Road Map",
>
> Kill the '...'.
> kld: I don't understand what's wrong.
The '...' in front of '[ROADMAP]' should be ' ',
unless '...' has some
special meaning I don't know about.
KLD2: Ahh! I'm still learning the difference
between space and period! Fixed.
>> Appendix A Changes RFC 2256
>
> s/Changes/Changes made since/.
>
> There are more changes:
>
> - Removed '{number}' (minimum lower bound?)
after the SYNTAX oid for
> all attributes that had that.
Whoops, I think I should have said 'minimum
_upper_ bound'.
KLD2: Yes, caught it.
--
Hallvard