Re: limits (Was: IETF ldapbis WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapbis-iana-04.txt)

[Ryan Moats <rmoats@lemurnetworks.net>]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 03:58:42PM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
| At 02:07 PM 2001-11-29, Ryan Moats wrote:
| >On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 01:44:05PM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
| >| At 10:19 AM 2001-11-29, Ryan Moats wrote:
| >| >1. Several searches on the ldapbis mailing archives failed to show any
| >| >discussion on the limits on protocol descriptors and option strings.
| >| >I for one am uncomfortable with applying such limits without more discussion.
| >| >Rather, once the requester has met the "SHOULD" consideration, I don't
| >| >think IANA should be given the right to arbitrarily refuse a request just
| >| >because of length. 
| >| 
| >| Well, I would argue that IANA should have the right to refuse
| >| a request solely the item is too long.  What this sentence does,
| >| is give the requester and the IANA guidance as to what lengths
| >| MAY be considered too long.
| >
| >I disagree.  Assigning a "MAY" limit creates (to me) an arbitrary limit
| >in an unlimited field.
| 
| The bottom line is that we need to provide requesters, reviewers,
| and the register (who often is the sole reviewer) guidance as to
| what is "too long" (or not "short").
| 
| I'm prefer the current language:
|    IANA MAY refuse to register any descriptor over 48 characters
|    in length.
| 
| but would fine with:
|    Any descriptor over 48 characters MAY be viewed as too long to
|    be registered.
| 
| If neither is acceptable, do you have a counter suggestion?

I'm still struggling with the '"SHOULD" be short' phrase to begin with.
As the document says, I don't see any reason for this in the protocol
specifications themselves, so my proposal are:

  While the protocol places no maximum length restriction upon
  descriptors, any descriptor over 48 characters MAY be viewed as too
  long to be registered.

and 

  While the protocol places no maximum length restriction upon option
  strings, any option string over 32 characters MAY be viewd as too
  long to be registered.

I'll admit I'm using DNS as a guide for making this larger.

| >If they've already passed review, then why should IANA stop them?
| 
| Well, assuming that IANA is not the sole reviewer of the request,
| I would think it quite unlikely that IANA would refuse to accept
| a request from the Expert or IESG who are acting in accordance
| with the guidelines.  If there was no guidance on "too long"
| or the Expert or IESG exceed requested something which was in
| fact "too long" for IANA to register, I wouldn't be surprised
| if they pushed back.
| 
| If they were the sole reviewer, I would expect they would
| follow the guidance given and/or to seek advice in cases where
| the requester was persistent.

Ok, that's fair.

Ryan