[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: limits (Was: IETF ldapbis WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapbis-iana-04.txt)
- To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Subject: Re: limits (Was: IETF ldapbis WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapbis-iana-04.txt)
- From: Ryan Moats <rmoats@lemurnetworks.net>
- Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 16:09:28 -0600
- Cc: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
- Content-disposition: inline
- In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20011130124421.016e19f0@127.0.0.1>; from Kurt@OpenLDAP.org on Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 02:44:33PM -0800
- References: <20011129121927.A918@localhost.localdomain> <5.1.0.14.0.20011129124536.017cad98@127.0.0.1> <20011129160718.E918@localhost.localdomain> <5.1.0.14.0.20011129153943.016f9858@127.0.0.1> <20011129205209.C1082@localhost.localdomain> <5.1.0.14.0.20011129195841.0177c558@127.0.0.1> <20011130120715.B1348@localhost.localdomain> <5.1.0.14.0.20011130113631.017d0c38@127.0.0.1> <20011130141741.C1348@localhost.localdomain> <5.1.0.14.0.20011130124421.016e19f0@127.0.0.1>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 02:44:33PM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
| At 12:17 PM 2001-11-30, Ryan Moats wrote:
| >On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 11:42:36AM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
| >| At 10:07 AM 2001-11-30, Ryan Moats wrote:
| >| >Because I've seen far too many cases where what was originally thought
| >| >to be "enough space" ran out.
| >|
| >| But these aren't limits. They don't cause us to "run out" of anything.
| >
| >I think you are trying to have it both ways. You are saying "anything
| >longer MAY be refused as being too long" and then saying "these aren't
| >limits". They *are* a barrier to names (call it a guideline, call it
| >a limit, it doesn't matter).
|
| There is a huge difference between:
| Descriptors MUST be no longer than 48 characters.
| than saying
| Registrations of descriptors longer than 48 characters
| MAY be refused.
|
| The former is a limit or barrier. The latter is guidance.
|
| While we could strike the whole consideration and leave it
| up to IANA to determine what "too large" to register, I think
| that BCP 26 calls for us to provide sufficient guidance.
|
| I've tried to make these choices in a manner which gives
| requesters, reviewers, and the register wiggle room. That's
| why it's a MAY, not a MUST or a SHOULD.
|
| It should be obvious that if the requester tries to register
| something which "too long" per the guideline AND there are
| no reasonable alternatives, that the register would exercise
| appropriate judgement and not refuse the registration.
|
| > What's so special of 16 over 32?
|
| Basically, I choose 16 as, IMO, 8 seemed is too small and
| 32 is excessive [taking everything into consideration].
|
| But, with this said, 16 isn't "so" special. I could likely
| live with 16 or 24 or 32. I suggest we have Bob do a straw
| poll at IETF#52 and take it from there.
|
I think that's acceptable (I have had my schedule changed and
won't be able to make the meeting).
Ryan