Subject: Standardization of change sequence number

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:49:28 -0700

I (and I believe others) would like to see the change sequence number
syntax be progressed in a standards-track document. Of those initially
interested in this, I believe consensus is that it should be defined as
a complex type (using ASN.1). A string encoding would be defined (which
would likely look just like the one in draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-xx.txt).
Then matching rules would be defined in terms of the complext type (not
the string encoding).
 
Do the authors of the relevant LDUP I-Ds want to participate in the act
of pulling out the current LdapChangeSequenceNumber, and referring to a
new I-D, or would they rather just leave it alone (in order to more
quickly achieve last call), and let any new I-D progress without being
referred to?
 
Jim

---

From: "Steven Legg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:15:58 +1100

Jim,

As editor of the URP document, I don't mind changing that document to
reference a
proposed standard definition for the change sequence number in the form
outlined
below. To avoid slowing the LDUP publication schedule, the CSN document
would
have to be produced immediately.

Regards,
Steven
  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Jim Sermersheim
  Sent: Wednesday, 12 November 2003 7:49 AM
  To: [email-masked]
  Subject: Standardization of change sequence number

  I (and I believe others) would like to see the change sequence number
syntax be progressed in a standards-track document. Of those initially
interested in this, I believe consensus is that it should be defined as a
complex type (using ASN.1). A string encoding would be defined (which would
likely look just like the one in draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-xx.txt). Then
matching rules would be defined in terms of the complext type (not the
string encoding).

  Do the authors of the relevant LDUP I-Ds want to participate in the act of
pulling out the current LdapChangeSequenceNumber, and referring to a new
I-D,  or would they rather just leave it alone (in order to more quickly
achieve last call), and let any new I-D progress without being referred to?

  Jim

---

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:42:41 -0500

There will more than likely be some slippage from the WG Last Call schedule
discussed during
the WG Meeting even if the CSN document is published as soon as possible
after the I-D Administrator
starts processing I-Ds again.
 
Then the information model document would have to be revised before we could
start the first grouping
of WG Last Call documents mentioned during the WG Meeting.
 
As co-chair I'm OK with pulling the CSN content out as a separate
standards-track document if:
 
1) It is published as an LDUP WG document rather than an individual
contribution. I realize that the
rationale is that its applicability is broader than LDUP, but I'm skittish
about suggestions
to increase the dependency of the WG's deliverables on documents not within
the control of
any WG. This has caused problems before and I don't want to add more of that
type of risk.
 
2) It is submitted to the I-D Editor as soon as possible after they begin
accepting new
submissions.
 
3) The new CSN LDUP I-D is included in the WG Last Call grouping of the
first document
that will reference it, INFOMOD.
 
4) The INFOMOD Document Editors are able to submit the revised INFOMOD draft
within a
couple of days of the CSN I-D Action announcement occurring.
 
Keep in mind that if we go that way, we are introducing uncertainty in
starting the WG Last Call
sequence as discussed during the WG Meeting. This is not really a good thing
from a process
perspective, but does seem to be the right thing to do from a document
management perspective.
 
I'll wait to see some postings from other WG Members (especially need to
hear from the INFOMOD
Editors) before making a judgment call on this. This means that the first
grouping WG Last Call won't
happen as planned on the Monday after the IETF.
 
INFOMOD Editors: please respond ASAP.
 
Chris Apple 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Steven Legg
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 11:16 AM
To: Jim Sermersheim; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Standardization of change sequence number

Jim,

Regards,
Steven

-----Original Message-----

I (and I believe others) would like to see the change sequence number syntax
be progressed in a standards-track document. Of those initially interested
in this, I believe consensus is that it should be defined as a complex type
(using ASN.1). A string encoding would be defined (which would likely look
just like the one in draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-xx.txt). Then matching rules
would be defined in terms of the complext type (not the string encoding).

Jim