Subject: models-10 comments

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:19:09 +0100

models-10 says:

> 1.4. Common ABNF Productions

>       ; Any UTF-8 [UTF-8] encoded UCS [ISO10646] character

There is no [ISO10646] in the References section.  Perhaps this should
be [Unicode], according to Kurt's suggestion in message 'ISO 10646 v
Unicode' of 07 Jan 2004.  OTOH, UTF-8 is defined in terms of Iso10646,
not Unicode, so [Unicode] does seem strange here.

[UTF-8] should be [RFC3639].

BTW, There are 10646's in [Filters] and [Protocol] too.

> 2.5.1. Attribute Types

>     - a subtype's syntax must be the same, or a refine of, its
>       supertype's syntax, and

What is a refine of a syntax?

> 4.1. Schema Definitions

>       xstring = "X" HYPHEN 1*( UALPHA / HYPHEN / USCORE )

This is a strange change from Models-09, which said

        xstring = X   HYPHEN 1*( ALPHA  / HYPHEN / USCORE )

The X was uppercase only, now it can be either case.
The rest could be either case, now it is uppercase only.
Why such a swap?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial comments:

> 1.4. Common ABNF Productions

>   Implementations SHOULD treat short names (descriptors) used in an
>   unambiguous manner (as discussed above) as unrecognized.

s/unambiguous/ambiguous/:-)

> 2.3. Structure of an Entry

>   For example, a 'givenName' attribute can have can have more than one

s/can have can have/can have/.

> 4.1.2. Attribute Types

s/SUBSTRING/SUBSTR/ in this section.

> 4.1.3. Matching Rules

>   used in comparison of distinguished names

Add '.' at the end.  Unless some more of the sentence is missing too.

> 9. IANA Considerations

>         structuralObjectClass              A 2.5.21.5

This has OID 2.5.21.9 in section 3.4.5 (structuralObjectClass).
Which is right?

Also, there are too many spaces in front of the "A 2.5.21.5".

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 15:25:50 -0800

>>       ; Any UTF-8 [UTF-8] encoded UCS [ISO10646] character

Are you sure you are looking at -10?  

>Unicode' of 07 Jan 2004.

My copy says Unicode here.

>OTOH, UTF-8 is defined in terms of Iso10646, not Unicode, so [Unicode]
>does seem strange here.

[ISO10646] vs [UNICODE] issues are discussed in [RFC3629].

>[UTF-8] should be [RFC3639].

revision -10 does reference [RFC3629].

>What is a refine of a syntax?

s/refine/refinement/ here.

(I don't think we necessarily need to detail precisely what a
"refinement" of a syntax is.)

>The X was uppercase only, now it can be either case.

Yes, to be consistent with RFC 2252 (and our discussion regarding
case insensitive).

>The rest could be either case, now it is uppercase only.

Now it can be either case, "X" is case insensitive.

>Editorial comments:

Thanks, Kurt

---

From: Hallvard B Furuseth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:04:33 +0100

> Are you sure you are looking at -10?  

Yes, and my copy matches
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldapbis-models-10.txt>.
I guess you fixed it after submitting the draft.

> "refinement" of a syntax is.)

Well... not knowing what it means, my guesses are:
- The same syntax, but further restricted by e.g. size limitations,
- 'Refining' e.g. a DirectoryString to PrintableString, which is
  one of the ASN.1 CHOICEs for DirectoryString.
- Allowing either of the above.
If you feel it's OK to leave it at that, that's fine with me.
If not, but people should look up X.500 for 'syntax refinements',
perhaps you should add an X.500 reference.

> Now it can be either case, "X" is case insensitive.

If "it" = "the rest":  No, that's now UALPHA.
Which is not consistent with the other tokens in these definition
formats; they are case insensitive.

-- 
Hallvard

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 10:00:14 -0800

>I guess you fixed it after submitting the draft.
yes. -11 should reflect the change.

>perhaps you should add an X.500 reference.

I fine with leaving it as is (no explicit reference).  I think
it follows that the syntax of the supertype should be more
generic than that of the subtype.  I rather no split hairs over
precisely what "more generic" or "refinement" means.

>If "it" = "the rest":  No, that's now UALPHA.

That's an error.  It should be ALPHA.  These tokens
are case insensitive (per RFC 2252).

Kurt