As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd
Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February
2012.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?
Informational looks appropriate for registering new LDAP attributes and object
classes to be used for storing XMPP JIDs. The registry is "Expert Review", but
having an RFC would improve interoperability.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) identifies
users by use of JID (Jabber IDs). Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (LDAP) enables provision of a white pages service with
schema relating to users and support for internet protocols. This
specification defines schema to enable XMPP JIDs to be associated
with objects in an LDAP directory so that this information can be
used with white pages applications.
Working Group Summary
This document was not considered by any WG, as there are no active
LDAP or XMPP WGs at the moment. However it was reviewed by
both LDAP and XMPP experts.
Document Quality
NATO and UK MoD representatives expressed interest in using
the schema. As no new LDAP attribute syntaxes are proposed,
adding this to schema of existing LDAP servers is easy,
as it just requires adding corresponding OID and attribute syntax name
to schema files.
The document was also reviewed by LDAP (e.g. Kurt Zeilenga)
and XMPP experts (e.g. Peter Saint-Andre).
The document was improved in response to IANA questions and comments from
NATO.
Personnel
Alexey Melnikov is the document shepherd. Ben Campbell is the responsible AD.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
I verified references and checked LDAP schema against LDAP IANA registries.
I also checked ID-nits.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed?
No.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.
No.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the interested community has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
I raised the issue of differences in matching rules between LDAP and XMPP.
The new text in the latest version addressed my concerns to my satisfaction.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why.
Yes. There are no IPR on this document.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No.
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole understand and
agree with it?
There is sufficient support for this proposal from both LDAP and XMPP
experts.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
None found.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
IANA has requested LDAP Expert review for this document. I believe the
review has been completed and comments from Designated Expert were responded
to.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative?
Yes. All references in the document are Normative.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion?
All normative references point to existing RFCs.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so,
list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call
procedure.
No.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the interested community
considers it unnecessary.
This document doesn't affect existing RFCs.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 5226).
IANA registration section requests registration of 1 new object class and 1
new attribute. IANA is requested to assign an OID, that will be used as a
prefix for both of these registrations.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.
No new IANA registries are created by this document.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate sections of
the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB
definitions, etc.
The document doesn't include ABNF, XML or MIBs.