Subject: [Ldap-dir] Mark Wahl's individual submissions

From: Chris Newman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 12:13:20 -0700

Mark Wahl has ask the following documents move to proposed standard:

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wahl-ldap-adminaddr-04.txt>

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wahl-ldap-p3p-03.txt>

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wahl-ldap-subtree-source-01.txt>

I would like at least one person on the directorate other than Mark to express 
support for moving these forward.

I would appreciate it if anyone on the directorate has time to fill out a proto 
write up for these documents. For details on what that entails, see
  <http://www.ietf.org/IESG/content/ions/ion-ad-sponsoring.html#writeup>

                Thanks,
                - Chris Newman
                Applications Area Director

_______________________________________________
Ldap-dir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldap-dir

---

From: Steven Legg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 17:13:51 +1000

Chris,

This message only showed up in my mail box a few days ago. I don't have
a current need for these proposals, so I can't attest to their usefulness,
but I can comment on the technical content.

> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wahl-ldap-adminaddr-04.txt>

I have no concern over this document progressing as a proposed standard.

> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wahl-ldap-p3p-03.txt>

The only concern I have over this document being progressed as a
proposed standard is that the method a client needs to follow
to obtain the appropriate subtreeP3PrivacyPolicy attribute
isn't well defined. Two independent client implementations could
end up applying different policy because they don't look in the same
likely places or don't look in those likely places in the same order.

> <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wahl-ldap-subtree-source-01.txt>

I have no concern over this document progressing as a proposed standard.
I find the last sentence in section 2, i.e.,

    "The semantics of comparison of values of this attribute for
    equality is outside of the scope of this document."

a little odd given that the attribute definition explicitly references
caseExactMatch as the equality matching rule. I would guess that Mark
is referring to the problem that two URI strings that are not equal
according to the caseExactMatch matching rule can nonetheless be
equivalent as URIs.

> 
> I would like at least one person on the directorate other than Mark to 
> express support for moving these forward.

If the method for obtaining the subtreeP3PrivacyPolicy attribute is better
defined then I see no harm in progressing the documents. Does that count
as support ?

> 
> I would appreciate it if anyone on the directorate has time to fill out 
> a proto write up for these documents. For details on what that entails, see

Not me I'm afraid.

Regards,
Steven