Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Ted Hardie) Yes
(Brian Carpenter) No Objection
Comment (2005-09-26 for -)
From Gen-ART review by Joel Halpern: Question: Based on the issues that have been raised about reviews recently, should this document be more specific as to what kinds of issues the expert reviewer is to look for in each kind of item to be reviewed, and why? (I am not arguing with the WGs choice of mechanism, just trying to head off trouble that can be foreseen.) [BC - I think that would be asking too much] Question: Is the last sentence of the second paragraph of 3.4 intended to call for expert review of all descriptors, or only of descriptors referencing different object identifiers from an already registered descriptor with the same name? While I find this verbiage awkward in the other places it is used, this particular usage is less clear than the others. [BC - a small clarification would help] Editorial: In section 3, the word "expecting" is almost certainly "excepting".
(Margaret Cullen) No Objection
(Bill Fenner) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Sam Hartman) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection
Comment (2005-09-23 for -)
Some small editorial things. Section 3: "IANA may reject obviously bogus registrations described." appears to be a sentence fragment. "Other LDAP values, expecting those in private-use name spaces, SHOULD be registered." "expecting"? Maybe "except"? "or otherwise recongize unregistered" s/recongize/recognize/
(Russ Housley) No Objection
(David Kessens) No Objection
(Allison Mankin) (was Abstain, Discuss) No Objection
Clearing my Discuss: The issue concerned the use of the word "owner" for the registry objects, particularly the IESG owning them. Kurt pointed out there is much precedent, including some words in RFC 2434, and in many IANA registry labels themselves (though not all). I think there is still some consideration to be made of this, for instance, the IESG point, but I can agree that this document does not have to be the place. I'll send a comment for rfc2434bis and I suggest that this be raised by the IANA RFP parties (the registry objects, change control versus ownership terms for IETF). I've changed my position to No-Obj