[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: Refering to X.500 editions
The fourth edition has been approved, but not published, as far as I can
Does out-of-maintenance mean that the second edition will not be
available from ITU and ISO/ANSI? Removal of the approved draft text
from the OSIDirectory server is usually an accurate signal. I think
that would be the biggest concern.
"Slone, Skip" wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken, when the fourth edition was approved earlier this year,
> the second edition (1993) went out of maintenance, meaning no further
> defects will be processed on it. Is there likely to be a problem
> referencing an out-of-maintenance standard as the base?
> If it is a problem, we would need to check with Hoyt to confirm my
> understanding of the maintenance status before making any changes.
> -- Skip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathy Dally [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 2:33 PM
> To: ietf-ldapbis
> Subject: Refering to X.500 editions
> Hi All!
> In RFC 2256 the X.500 reference is to 1996. Unfortunately, this is not an
> official date (see below). Since 1997 is closer to 1996 than 1993, the
> draft replacement for RFC 2256
> (<draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema-00.txt>) refers to X.500 (1997). In fact,
> RFC 2256 includes some attributes that were introduced in X.520 (1997).
> However, other LDAPv3 core RFCs refer to X.500 (1993).
> In order to align the replacement RFCs, I propose to cite X.500 (1993) in
> the title and references of <draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema-01.txt>.
> In addition, X.520 (1997) should be a separate reference in the I-D, to be
> referred to when describing the new attributes.
> Does this make sense? Please let me know.
> Below is material about the different X.500 editions and their ISO/IEC 9594
> twins. Credit is given to Hoyt Kesterson, ISO/IEC 9594 Editor, for most of
> the information. I hope this will be useful to the WG.
> Kathy Dally
> Although the X.500 Recommendations and ISO/IEC 9594 were aligned in the
> first edition and identical ever since, the official dates on the standards
> are different:
> * X.500 Recs (ITU) date is the date of approval.
> * ISO/IEC 9594 date is the date of publication.
> Since a considerable amount of preparation is done between approval and
> publication, the dates of the two standards have been different:
> * first edition: X.500 (1988) and ISO/IEC 9594:1990
> * second edition: X.500 (1993) and ISO/IEC 9594:1995
> * third edition: X.500 (1997) and ISO/IEC 9594:1998
> * fourth edition, currently being published: X.500 (2001) and
> ISO/IEC 9594:2001,
> except for X.509 (2000) and ISO/IEC 9594-8:2000
> Note that ISO/IEC also uses "edition" to mean the "issue number" of the part
> of 9594. This is the meaning of "Edition" on the face of ISO/IEC 9594
> parts. The key is the DATE.
> The first edition (overall) includes these recommendations and standard
> * X.500 - ISO/IEC 9594-1
> * X.501 - ISO/IEC 9594-2
> * X.509 - ISO/IEC 9594-8
> * X.511 - ISO/IEC 9594-3
> * X.518 - ISO/IEC 9594-4
> * X.519 - ISO/IEC 9594-5
> * X.520 - ISO/IEC 9594-6
> * X.521 - ISO/IEC 9594-7
> The second edition added X.525 - ISO/IEC 9594-9:1995, 1st ed.
> The third edition added X.530 - ISO/IEC 9594-10:1998, 1st ed.
> The fourth edition does not have any additional recommendations or parts.