[apps-discuss] Apps Review Team review of draft-zeilenga-ldap-dontusecopy-08
Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 14 October 2010 17:04 UTC
Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A013A6B49; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.161
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.438, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yCWBTy3TZJA4; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96DC33A6B25; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk8 with SMTP id 8so226081qyk.10 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=DOQFCisFdfGa2q00u00LNhlj/wwaZmOrfb345hXhtc8=; b=kJlbGkSIpfiSm8ePiHLbJj2gIa+7FX66F9a5K1jK7gX3VccQS71acBPJ+li7xeePsq L5O1Io2Nes8uYCm61oo4OnuP/KwKcBFa4pXHV/OrDZlgpu0CdTpRsK0IueplfYfvRE2r YG11fpqBG78x91l5n4KW1X8ehVA7o0v8KjMsw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=M3TsMDdOGMZsQgd6UamCATRDgqIPDgowlfK1amqjZsUI0t1PVPh6r5l2qnu0VQPpzD k8pgQCHZissCGzV68CdquyU0lr/KvVGr3B1hD23qtwzFEIYjD0qhaBLnt6068QfdwZ06 sF0ylJvN/jGa9BVJnIcRCcfQifr/Nr19DpwBo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.130.143 with SMTP id t15mr7935875qas.213.1287075966591; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.213.69 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:06:06 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikk1kHpPndjfDBvRZkKrZKbEqdf6uW65KLAVH1z@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Apps Discuss <discuss@ietf.org>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Kurt.Zeilenga@isode.com, iesg@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [apps-discuss] Apps Review Team review of draft-zeilenga-ldap-dontusecopy-08
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:04:50 -0000
I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for this draft (for background on apps-review, please see http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-zeilenga-ldap-dontusecopy-08 Title: The LDAP Don't Use Copy Control Reviewer: Ted Hardie Review Date: October 14, 2010 Summary: This document is basically ready for publication on the standards track, with one clarification needed and some editorial issues. Major Issues: In section 3, the document currently says: If original (master) information for the target or base object of the operation is not available (either locally or through chaining), the server MUST either return a referral directing the client to a server believed to be better able to service the request or return an appropriate result code (e.g., unwillingToPerform). The LDAP referral syntax permits the use of URIs other than LDAP, provided they are believed capable of performing the operations (see RFC 2251 section 4.1.11). But it is not clear how a referral using a different URI scheme would handle a request for authoritative data only. I believe the author should consider whether restricting referrals to LDAP URIs would be useful in this case or whether real-world deployments make non-LDAP URIs sufficiently rare to make this superfluous. Text describing the case would be useful for either approach. Since the control is based on an X.511/DAP control, it is possible to get this same functionality there, but the IANA does not appear to list any URI scheme for this, making its use in a referral also apparently unlikely. Minor Issues: None seen. Nits: The background section has a number of cases where multiple parenthetical expressions are used. Some re-writing to remove them may increase the readability. For example: If the server has access to the original (master) information (directly or through chaining), it performs the operation against the original (master) information and return compareTrue or compareFalse (or an error). If the server has access to the original (master) information directly or through chaining, it performs the operation against the original (master) information and returns compareTrue, compareFalse, or an error. These can be resolved in cooperation with the RFC Editor's application of the style guide.
- [apps-discuss] Apps Review Team review of draft-z… Ted Hardie
- Re: [apps-discuss] Apps Review Team review of dra… Kurt Zeilenga