Syntax open issues

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

Kathy listed a number of "topics yet to be addressed".  My comments:

>  Paragraph 2.2.3 - Should attribute syntaxes be allowed to be referenced
>  by a common name, and if so, where should the name come from?  An 
>  optional NAME has been added to the BNF for SyntaxDescription in 
>  paragraph 2.2.4.

I posted a separate message regarding this issue.

>   Paragraph 2.2.3 - Should any syntaxes listed in the table be removed?

For clarity, I suggest only those syntaxes which are (fully)
specified in the I-D be listed.

>   Should any new syntaxes be added?  

In general, no.  Syntaxes are features.  We cannot add new features.

>  How does the data model draft <draft-wahl-ladpv3-defns-00.txt> affect
>  this draft?  

In short, it doesn't.  The yet to be produced "LDAP Overview /
Data Model" I-D might, that depends on what this I-D ends up
looking like.

>  Section 3 - Should all listed syntaxes from paragraph 2.2.3 be 
>  detailed in this section?

The table should be trimmed to just those syntaxes which are
specified in the "core" specification.  We must avoid adding
new syntaxes (syntaxes are features).

I note as well that we need to trim some of the syntaxes, in
particular X.509 certificate syntaxes, which were specified in
rfc2252 for specification and/or implementation report issues.

>   Section 6 - Recognized list of Object classes needs to be reconciled 
>   with updated RFC 2256 and the data model draft.

I am not sure what list you are referring to.

> Section 7 - Proper security statement needs to be formulated.

Yes.