Skip to main content

Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP): String Representation of Distinguished Names
draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-16

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
16 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Allison Mankin
2012-08-22
16 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Harald Alvestrand
2012-08-22
16 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley
2006-06-12
16 (System) This was part of a ballot set with: draft-ietf-ldapbis-filter, draft-ietf-ldapbis-models
2005-03-02
16 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2005-02-24
16 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2005-02-24
16 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2005-02-24
16 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2005-02-22
16 Ted Hardie State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ted Hardie
2005-02-22
16 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Allison Mankin
2005-02-17
16 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] Position for Harald Alvestrand has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Harald Alvestrand
2005-02-14
16 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-16.txt
2005-01-07
16 Amy Vezza State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2005-01-07
16 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-01-06
2005-01-06
16 Thomas Narten [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten
2005-01-06
16 Michelle Cotton IANA Comments:
We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2005-01-06
16 Allison Mankin
[Ballot discuss]
[I note this ldapbis set depends on completion on  protocol and iana documents,
and I've reviewed those drafts to understand these].

comment for …
[Ballot discuss]
[I note this ldapbis set depends on completion on  protocol and iana documents,
and I've reviewed those drafts to understand these].

comment for future - protocol document needs a specific section on how
access control is done and to what extent it must be implemented.

Discuss on ldapbis-dn - please expand the privacy guidance; Suggestion. 
OLD (in its entirety):
  Most countries have privacy laws regarding the publication of
  information about people.
NEW:
  A number of attributes of DNs contain information which may
  be viewed as sensitive (e.g. location information and phone numbers),
  and in many countries may also be subject to privacy law.
  The use of access control of disclosure and other security measures
  SHOULD be considered, as described in the security considerations
  in draft-ietf-ldapbis-proto-xx.
2005-01-06
16 Bert Wijnen [Ballot comment]
- document: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-15.txt
  page 5:  it can be prefixed by a backslash...
  on that line (at the end of line): s/0005C/005c/
2005-01-06
16 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin
2005-01-06
16 Bert Wijnen [Ballot comment]
test
2005-01-06
16 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Bert Wijnen
2005-01-06
16 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen
2005-01-06
16 Harald Alvestrand
[Ballot comment]
Reviewed by Scott Brim, Gen-ART

His review:

This draft might be ready for Proposed Standard but I have a couple
discussion questions.  I …
[Ballot comment]
Reviewed by Scott Brim, Gen-ART

His review:

This draft might be ready for Proposed Standard but I have a couple
discussion questions.  I definitely suggest bringing up the first one.

(1) It says

  1.2. Relationship to X.501

    This document includes material, with and without adaptation, from
    [X.501].  The material in this document takes precedence over that
    in [X.501].

Has ITU-T been informed? :-p  That is, under what conditions or in what
contexts does this override X.501, and what does ITU-T have to say about
that?  I have trouble believing the statement is accurate as it stands.


(2) Statements like:

  Servers SHALL restrict modifications of this attribute to prevent
  superclasses of remaining 'objectClass' values from being deleted.

might be better down in Section 5.1 (server-specific data requirements)
or 7.1 (server (implementation) guidelines).  Where they occur I suggest
changing them so they look a lot less procedural -- this draft is about
informational models after all -- for example "this attribute cannot be
changed except administratively".
2005-01-06
16 Harald Alvestrand
[Ballot discuss]
Minor terminology/political issue, identified by Scott Brim:

The document says:

  1.2. Relationship to X.501

    This document includes material, with and …
[Ballot discuss]
Minor terminology/political issue, identified by Scott Brim:

The document says:

  1.2. Relationship to X.501

    This document includes material, with and without adaptation, from
    [X.501].  The material in this document takes precedence over that
    in [X.501].

I think this can be read as "we are changing X.501", which we of course are not.

Suggested alternate text:

    This document describes LDAP, which is a protocol that is somewhat like
    the X.500 protocol described in X.501. To describe this protocol, it uses
    material from [X.501], but when this document and [X.501] differ, it is
    this document that describes LDAP.
2005-01-06
16 Harald Alvestrand [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand
2005-01-06
16 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman
2005-01-06
16 Alex Zinin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin
2005-01-06
16 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2005-01-05
16 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2005-01-05
16 Michelle Cotton IANA Comments:
We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2005-01-05
16 Jon Peterson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson
2005-01-05
16 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley
2005-01-04
16 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
Section 2 of draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn says:
  >
  > If the AttributeType is defined to have a short name and that short
  …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 2 of draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn says:
  >
  > If the AttributeType is defined to have a short name and that short
  > name is known to be registered [REGISTRY][BCP64bis] as identifying
  > the AttributeType, that short name, a , is used.
  >
  I do not have a problem with this approach, but there needs
  to be an IANA consideration associated with this registry.  That
  seems to be in section A.4 of draft-ietf-ldapbis-bcp64-04.txt, but
  that document is still being worked on by the working group.

  Section 3 of draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn says:
  >
  > Implementations MAY recognize other DN string representations
  > (such as that described in RFC 1779).
  >
  All of the X.500 attribute types listed in the table of RFC 1779
  MUST be supported in this document.  This reference adds confusion.
2005-01-04
16 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
Please add "This document obsoletes RFC 2253." to the end of the
  Abstract of draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn.

  Please add "This document obsoletes …
[Ballot comment]
Please add "This document obsoletes RFC 2253." to the end of the
  Abstract of draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn.

  Please add "This document obsoletes RFC 2254." to the end of the
  Abstract of draft-ietf-ldapbis-filter.  Also, the reference should
  be removed from the Abstract.  The last sentence might read:
  >
  > This document defines a human-readable string representation of
  > LDAP search filters that is appropriate for use in LDAP URLs and
  > other applications.
  >
  This wording avoids the need to wait for [LDAPURL] to be assigned
  an RFC number.

  Please add "This document obsoletes RFC 2251, RFC 2252, and
  RFC 2256." to the end of the Abstract of draft-ietf-ldapbis-models.
2005-01-04
16 Russ Housley
[Ballot discuss]
Section 2 of draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn says:
  >
  > If the AttributeType is defined to have a short name and that short
  …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 2 of draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn says:
  >
  > If the AttributeType is defined to have a short name and that short
  > name is known to be registered [REGISTRY][BCP64bis] as identifying
  > the AttributeType, that short name, a , is used.
  >
  I do not have a problem with this approach, but an IANA there needs
  to be an IANA consideration associated with this registry.  That
  seems to be in section A.4 of draft-ietf-ldapbis-bcp64-04.txt, but
  that document is still being worked on by the working group.

  Section 3 of draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn says:
  >
  > Implementations MAY recognize other DN string representations
  > (such as that described in RFC 1779).
  >
  All of the X.500 attribute types listed in the table of RFC 1779
  MUST be supported in this document.  This reference adds confusion.
2005-01-04
16 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2005-01-04
16 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman
2005-01-03
16 Scott Hollenbeck [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck
2004-12-30
16 Ted Hardie Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-01-06 by Ted Hardie
2004-12-30
16 Ted Hardie State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Ted Hardie
2004-12-30
16 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Hardie
2004-12-30
16 Ted Hardie Ballot has been issued by Ted Hardie
2004-12-30
16 Ted Hardie Created "Approve" ballot
2004-12-28
16 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system
2004-12-09
16 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2004-12-09
16 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2004-12-09
16 Ted Hardie Last Call was requested by Ted Hardie
2004-12-09
16 Ted Hardie State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Ted Hardie
2004-12-09
16 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2004-12-09
16 (System) Last call text was added
2004-12-09
16 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2004-11-09
16 Ted Hardie Draft Added by Ted Hardie in state Publication Requested
2004-10-29
15 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-15.txt
2004-06-08
14 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-14.txt
2004-02-16
13 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-13.txt
2003-10-27
12 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-12.txt
2003-07-01
11 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-11.txt
2003-05-05
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-10.txt
2003-03-07
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-09.txt
2002-08-26
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-08.txt
2002-03-06
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-07.txt
2001-07-24
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-06.txt
2001-04-30
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-05.txt
2001-04-24
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-04.txt
2001-04-03
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-03.txt
2001-03-30
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-02.txt
2001-03-01
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-01.txt
2000-12-20
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-dn-00.txt