[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: schema-07 comments
Hi Hallvard!
Thanks for your input. My responses (kld:) are
in-line below. One general remark. The line
wrapping problems were not in my original. I'll
take this up with the RFC Editor.
Regards,
Kathy Dally
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
[mailto:owner-ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org] On Behalf
Of Hallvard B Furuseth
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 11:49 AM
To: ietf-ldapbis@OpenLDAP.org
Subject: schema-07 comments
Mostly an update of my message 'schema comments'
of 11. Dec 2003, which
you seem to have missed.
> 2.23 postalAddress
> 2.27 registeredAddress
> "15 Main St., Ottawa, Canada"
Please use the LDAP syntax, "15 Main
St.$Ottawa$Canada".
kld: No. The example is a single address.
Escaping the ","s is fixed.
> 2.26 preferredDeliveryMethod
> if mhs-delivery is preferred over
telephone-delivery, which is
> preferred over all other methods, the value of
the value would
> be {1, 9}.
That's the ASN.1 representation. Please use the
LDAP string syntax,
"mhs $ telephone". Or spell your examples of DNs
something like
{{{"c", "US"}}, {{"o", "Something, Inc."}}}:-)
kld: fixed
> 2.43 x500UniqueIdentifier
> In X.520 [X.520], this attribute type is
called
> uniqueIdentifier. This is a different
attribute type from both the
> "uid" and "uniqueIdentifier" attribute types.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you mean an LDAP "uniqueIdentifier" attribute
type, that is not
defined in this document. Where is it defined?
kld: It is in RFC 1274. However, we are trying
to avoid references to that
RFC. If "(uniqueIdentifier is specified in
RFC 1274.)", was added
to the paragraph would that be ok? Would
RFC 1274 have to be included
as an Informative Reference? Also, see 2.39
in the I-D.
--------------------------------------------------
----------------------
Editorial comments:
Sections 2.21 (owner), 2.28 (roleOccupant):
<o=Widget',' Inc.> in DNs should be <o=Widget\,
Inc.> or <o=Widget\2C
Inc.'>. The -06 draft had a different error: The
comma was unquoted.
kld: fixed
roleOccupant has lost 'o=' in front of Widget.
kld: fixed
2.30 (seeAlso), OTOH, has no comma in 'Widget
Inc.'.
2.40 (uniqueMember).
I don't think DN examples should have space after
the ',' between RDN
components. IIRC, that was an LDAPv2ism.
kld: fixed; Also, the bit string was moved to
the end of the distinguished name.
Also, these paragraphs have some bad formatting:
Text dropped to the
left with no margin, maybe after a spurious line
break. Maybe the RFC
Editor has another nroff than you. I've seen a
similar effect when a
nroff macro receives more arguments than it
supported. For some nroff
commands I believe it can be fixed by putting the
.command alone on one
line, so it will take the next line as its
argument.
Sections 1.4, 2.26, 2.30 and 2.40 have the same
formatting problem.
Spurious blank lines:
Section 2.4: 2 in first paragraph.
2.9: 1 in last paragraph.
2.28: 1 in first paragraph.
2.42: 1 in first paragraph.
6: 1 in third paragraph.
7.2: 2 before the [LDAP-CRL] reference.
Appendix A: 2 before item 2.
kld: fixed
Section 2.35 lacks a blank line before the
attribute
definition and has an extra blank line after it.
kld: fixed
These formatting problems seem to be new since
schema-06, though I've
only checked -06 for a few of them.
> 1.1 Situation
> Section 3.4 of
> this document supercedes the technical
specification for the 'dc'
kld: not in my original
Section 2.4.
> 2.10 facsimileTelephoneNumber
> numbers (and, optionally, the parameters) for
facsimile terrminals.
^^^^^^^^^^
terminals.
kld: fixed
> 2.28 roleOccupant
> objects(normally people) that fulfill the
responsibilities of a role
^^^
missing space
kld: fixed
> 2.32 sn
> The sn (surname)attribute type contains name
strings for the family
^^^
missing space
kld: fixed
> 2.35 telephoneNumber
> (e.g., 1 234 567 8901) Each number is one
value of this
Suggest '+1 ...' instead of '1 ...'.
kld: ok
> 2.40 uniqueMember
> Distinguished Names of the object include a
value that distinguishs
^^^^^^^^^^^^
distinguishes
kld: fixed
> "ou=1st Battalion#'010101', o=Defense, c=US".
Missing 'B' after bit string.
kld: fixed
> 3.9 organizationalRole
> represents a job or function or position in an
organization.
^^^^
job, function or position
kld: fixed
> 4. IANA Considerations
> Specification: RFC XXXX [editor's note:
The RFC number will be
> the one assigned to this document.
Missing ']'.
kld: fixed
> 7.1 Normative
> ...[ROADMAP] Zeilenga, K., "LDAP: Technical
Specification Road Map",
Kill the '...'.
kld: I don't understand what's wrong.
> 7.2 Informative
> [F.1] Operational Provisions For The
International Public Telegram
> Service Transmission System, CCITT
Recommmendation F.1, 1992
Indent 2nd line.
kld: fixed
> Appendix A Changes RFC 2256
s/Changes/Changes made since/.
There are more changes:
- Removed '{number}' (minimum lower bound?) after
the SYNTAX oid for
all attributes that had that.
- Added text about Unicode, SASLprep and UTF-8 for
userPassword.
kld: ok
--
Hallvard