COSINE LDAP/X.500 Schema
RFC 4524

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'This document provides a collection of schema elements for use with the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) from the COSINE and Internet X.500 pilot projects.

This document obsoletes RFC 1274 and updates RFCs 2247 and 2798. [STANDARDS-TRACK]')

[Ballot discuss]
We need RFC Editor notes from me to put the phone numbers
and a few other tiny things right.  Will give you
those shortly.

IANA Comments:
Upon approval of this document the IANA will update the refereces in the
ldap-parameters registry for the listed descriptors in the IANA Considerations section.  The IANA will also put the * notation for the descriptors that have been marked for those registrations that are historic in nature.

[Ballot discuss]
The Security Considerations say:
  >
  > Directories administrators should ensure that access to sensitive
  > information is restricted to authorized entities, but ensure that
  > appropriate data security services, including data integrity and data
  > confidentiality, are used to protect against eavesdropping.
  >
  Integrity protection does not protect against eavesdropping.  It would
  be much better to divide this into two points, one about integrity, and
  one about confidentiality.

[Ballot discuss]
Section 2.1: the  token referenced from RFC 1034 is constructed from  tokens that look like this:

::=  [ [  ]  ]

Note that this does not allow domain names that begin with a digit, which are clearly in use today.

Could the same or similar text that was used to address this issue in draft-ietf-ldapbis-user-schema be used here?

Kurt's request:


I recommend draft-zeilenga-ldap-cosine-01.txt be published
as a Proposed Standard, obsoleting RFC 1274 and 2247 and
updating RFC 2798.  This I-D provides an updated technical
specification for COSINE schema.  This schema is in wide
use in Internet directories.  This I-D updates the schema
for compatibility with LDAP "core" schema elements
(as defined by LDAPBIS) and provides LDAP-compatible
schema definitions.  I believe the requested publication
(and associated actions) is supported by rough or better
consensus.

Regards, Kurt