Re: MHS Schema

[Kathy Dally <kdally@mitre.org>]

Hi!

I think you meant to delete the applicationEntity object class, not the
applicationProcess o.c.  Should both go?

Thanks,
Kathy


"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> 
> I think we should remove the MHS OR Address syntax from
> the "core" specification.  This syntax is dependent on
> RFC 1327.  RFC 1327 has been obsoleted by RFC 2156,
> presently a Proposed Standard.  However, RFC 2156 is
> nearly five years old and I don't see any viable effort
> to revise it for Draft Standard.
> 
> Presentation Address syntax should also be removed.  It is
> dependent on RFC 1278, presently Informational.  As there
> is no viable effort to bring this specification onto the
> standards track, our dependency upon this specification
> must be cut.  Likewise, the presentationAddressMatch rule,
> the 'presentationAddress' attribute type, and the
> 'applicationProcess' object class should be removed.
> 
> Also, as previously discussed, the protocol information
> syntax should be removed as having no defined LDAP string
> encoding.  Removing dependent elements, namely
> protocolInformationMatch rule, the protocolInformation
> attribute type are also necessary.
> 
> Also, supportedApplicationContext should be removed as
> its semantics is not well specified in RFC 2256 and it
> specificaiton should likely be kept with the specification
> of 'applicationProcess'.
> 
> Hence, I propose that the specification of these schema
> elements be removed from the revised LDAP "core" specification
> and, if desired, be progressed separately on an individual
> basis.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Kurt