[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Why didn't rfc2307bis supersede rfc2307?
- To: "'openldap-technical@openldap.org'" <openldap-technical@openldap.org>
- Subject: Why didn't rfc2307bis supersede rfc2307?
- From: John Lewis <oflameo2@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 02:10:54 -0400
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3TJaC0/2pv+vAfpsIStlwF4Z29bfHuTpvBkjmXSpn1w=; b=FaclPNslP7Xu0UAMDwdwwbA7HjrDMQPuREAk/4cUBlEgqKvnjAkELv1MIqcXtPCEc2 aPilGpav+b1+LAwL/0320+xk1NUi+yOdDxYkPRVJBje3jCIJ5qNtOHQCJSHRA2idxuWk e6qDmN6G6Ss116cBwqHq9ZjbjqrhPBbh7gsNHrfE4pak3qMB2rqHANRoYCK5MeRa6cZc 1jmf1a7wCneSOIE88NxdSZ4qwVBRvNsAdOBnzmixzKFP8IasRCqacnoqbZXTlz1TPSMp B3C0AFqRoG/gGJ7juqkwxqPqTKD2PpUHfQVEWUsMmJzfSAO9whNE5wtPUeRnZeIC7q1M EuhA==
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-rfc2307bis-02
They only thing that jumps at me is the name. It doesn't follow rfc
norms. Normally a new standard would be rfc and then the next number
available. This one deviated, It used the same number as the old one and
appended text. The standard itself is good enough to be used by Active
Directory and FreeIPA by default.
I am having a really hard time finding anyone who says that the standard
is bad. I am willing to bet that if Luke Howard puts out this latest
proposal out under the name of the next available rfc number today,
which according to ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-ref.txt would
be rfc8203 it will be approved before the end of the year.
According to Ludo here
https://ludopoitou.com/2011/04/20/linux-and-unix-ldap-clients-and-rfc2307-support/ , I can campaign for the standard myself if I had permission from the authors.
I would do it to streamline documentation and, get the new standard into
OpenLDAP 2.5 so it will be in OpenLDAP 2.6 by default.