Subject: RE: WG ACTION: comments requested for slpv2bis final list of chan ges

From: "McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:42:15 -0700

Hi Erik,

With the caveat that I think more discussion is needed
on the restrictions on LDAP search filter expressions,
I agree with all of the suggested revisions below.

A question - you propose that we RECOMMEND that DAs
use mesh enhancement (which is a good idea and a
good design) - but then we have to test for
interoperable implementations in moving SLPv2 to
Draft Std - Will this slow us down?  Should we 
do the mesh enhancement as a separate RFC entirely?

Cheers,
- Ira McDonald, consulting architect at Xerox and Sharp
  High North Inc

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Guttman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:29 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: WG ACTION: comments requested for slpv2bis final list of
changes

   ***************************************************
   ***************************************************
   **                                               **
   **           FOR WORKING GROUP DECISION          **
   **        (Send responses by Oct. 3, 2000)       **
   **                                               **
   ***************************************************
   ***************************************************

There has been discussion of draft-guttman-svrloc-slpv2bis-01.txt.
I want to summarize and see if we can get consensus on the SVRLOC
mailing list.  Once we have this, Jim and I will produce the next
version of slpv2bis, which will be a protocol spec meant to fully
replace RFC 2608.

Final list of changes to RFC 2608:

 . Deprecate use of '!' and '|' in search filters - only
   as per draft-guttman-slpv2bis-01.txt, section 3.1

      filter   = '(' '&' <exprlist> ')'
      exprlist = <expr> | <expr> <exprlist>
      expr     = '(' <tag> <op> <val> ')'  
      tag      = as RFC 2254 excluding <extensible> rule
      op       = ibid 
      val      = ibid

   draft-zhao-slp-da-interaction-07.txt is in WG last call, close 
   to submission to the IESG for advancement to proposed standard

 . Deprecate attribute requests by type
   as per draft-guttman-slpv2bis-01.txt, section 3.2.1

 . Deprecate service deregistration tag list wildcards
   as per draft-guttman-slpv2bis-01.txt, section 3.2.2  

 . Recommend mesh enhanced support to DAs.
   as per draft-guttman-slpv2bis-01.txt, section 3.3

 . Deprecate rfc 2610 mandatory scope configuration rules
   as per draft-guttman-slpv2bis-01.txt, section 3.5.1

 . Use MADCAP scope configuration rules. 
   as per draft-guttman-slpv2bis-01.txt, section 3.5.2

 . Revise scope rules
   as per draft-guttman-slpv2bis-01.txt, section 3.5.3

 . Deprecate attribute tag list wildcards
   as per draft-guttman-slpv2bis-01.txt, section 3.6

 . Use literal string matching (not requiring elision of spaces)
   as per draft-guttman-slpv2bis-01.txt, section 3.7

Controversy on the list has lead me to the following opinions
(but please discuss this further if you disagree!)

 . Use of exclusion lists is not yet understood enough and is
   redundent given that we have previous responder lists.  
   Thus, it should be progressed as an OPTIONAL enhancement 
   not as a RECOMMENDED replacement for PR lists.

 . There is some support of full LDAP search filters (see
   http://www.srvloc.org/hypermail/0684.html) but we can
   take this up in another thread.  I think that after 
   clarification, Evan will agree with me on this one.

   It is not suggested to eliminate the '&' - only the '!'
   (which doesn't make much sense anyway:  I don't look for
   all the services which DO NOT support a particular feature,
   I look for the services which DO have the desired characteristics)
   and '|' which can readily be done by submitting a series of
   requests if previous ones fail, or sending them 'in parallel.'
   This is not efficient, but it is an odd thing to do anyway.
   Normally we look for a service which meets our requirements,
   and these requirements don't have exclusive conditions, like
   'has feature A and C' OR 'has feature B and D'.

Shortly after Oct 3, I will send a revised version of this list 
reflecting the consensus of the WG.  It is important to get your
comments in before Oct. 3.

Thanks,

Erik

---

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 08:32:16 +0200 (MET DST)

> Draft Std - Will this slow us down?  

There is an implementation at Columbia by Weibin Zhao
(which is current - but will have to slightly change 
for the revision due to the preceding WG last call.)

I have received private email that there is a second
implementation as well.  That means we can show interop
already (modulo the final changes, which are easy to 
implement if you already have draft 07 done).

> Should we do the mesh enhancement as a separate RFC entirely?
> 

That RFC will come out very shortly.  We are going
back into WG last call next week with the revised
doc.

So I think we are OK with the recommendation and that
its really good for SLP, even in the short run.

Erik