[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
subschema semantics (Was: Models: Schema references to undefined entities)
title changed to separate issues
At 07:35 AM 2/10/2003, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>Kurt D. Zeilenga writes:
>>At 01:24 PM 1/31/2003, Michael Ströder wrote:
>>>Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>
>> Note that I use the term "published" here. Schema is "defined"
>> in technical specifications, servers publish descriptions they
>> know (if they so choose).
>
>Oh, right. That was in a previous draft of [Models], but it's not in
>version 06. Could you put it back?
I assume you are asking to revert the I-D to "servers publish
schema what they support" semantics.
Last spring we had a discussion of these issues last spring.
Here is the start of the thread:
http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200205/msg00034.html
Steven Legg raised a concern about this
http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200206/msg00002.html
which lead to the I-D having its current wording. I (as Editor)
believe the current language in this area reflects WG consensus.
Of course, the purpose of this WG Last Call is to confirm WG
consensus. I suggest you review the above referenced messages
as well as other messages you might find on this subject in the
archives. After doing so, if you have concerns, make a specific
suggestion (change X to Y) for the WG to consider.
(I'll respond to rest of your post in a separate post)
Kurt