Re: schema-08 notes

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 04:12 PM 3/25/2005, Andrew Sciberras wrote:
>Hi Hallvard,
>
>Thanks for your comments.
>I've added some inline comments for things that may need to be discussed further. For everything else, I've either noticed these myself or totally agree with you.
>
>
>Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>>schema-08 says:
>>
>>>2.4  dc
>>
>>I think section this needs '(Source: RFC 2247)', since one needs to
>>read that RFC to find an object class to put "dc" in.  The RFC is
>>mentioned elsewhere, but section 2.4 and 3.* is where readers who need
>>such an object class will be looking.
>>(Copied from message 'More schema-07 nits', 3 Jun 2004 which I don't see
>>a reply to.)
>>What's the criteria for getting a "(Source: ...)" anyway?
>>Every other attribute without one can get (Source:  X.520) except
>>userPassword which is from X.509.  Every object class, X.521.
>
>I'm thinking that the table in Section 1.4 should be all that is required to indicate the source of definitions.
>In which case I think I will remove the redundant (and in this case inconsistent) (Source:...) information.

I rather remove the table and instead add source information
in the sections providing the LDAP syntax description.


>>==
>>
>>>2.36  teletexTerminalIdentifier
>>>
>>>  The withdrawal of Rec. F.200 has resulted in the withdrawal of this
>>>  attribute.
>>
>>So, insert 'OBSOLETE' in the attribute definition below?

No!  OBSOLETE means obsolete in the subtree, hence whether to
mark the element as OBSOLETE in the subschema should be left to
the administrator.  (IIRC, we've discussed this before.)

>>==
>>
>>>1.1  Situation

This section should likely be renamed
        Relationship to other specifications

(for consistency with other LDAPBIS documents)

>>>  Section 2.4 of
>>>  this document supercedes the technical specification for the 'dc'
>>>  attribute type found in RFC 2247.  The remainder of RFC 2247 remains
>>>  in force.
>>>
>>>  This document updates RFC 2798 by replacing the informative
>>>  description of the 'uid' attribute type, with the definitive
>>>  description provided in Section 2.39 of this document.
>>
>>Maybe add refernces to these two RFCs, since they are updated instead of
>>obsoleted?

I do not think any references should be added for these mentions
of RFC 2247 and RFC 2798 because the reader need not read these
RFCs to understand this text.

>>==
>>
>>>7.  References
>>>7.1  Normative
>>>  [X.509]  The Directory:  Authentication Framework, ITU-T
>>>           Recommendation X.509, 1993
>>
>>This normative reference is not used, but there are informative
>>references that name X.509 so maybe it should be moved to informative
>>references.
>I will make reference to X.509 in section "1.1 Situation".

I rather not.

>I will replace the following text:
>
>PKI-related schema elements are now specified in
>[LDAP-CERT] and [LDAP-CRL].
>
>with:
>
>PKI-related schema elements from X.509 [X.509] are now specified in [LDAP-PKI]. Where LDAP-PKI is a reference to draft-zeilenga-ldap-x509-xx

The PKI schema elements are for a later revision of X.509
than which we reference for userPassword.  So, adding
this reference may confuse the reader.  I suggest you
drop 'from X.509 [X.509]' from your text.

Kurt