Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Schema for Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration version 3 (UDDIv3)
RFC 4403

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Steven Bellovin) Discuss

Discuss (2004-10-12 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
I think that the Security Considerations section for a document like this should be similar to what is done for MIBs.  That is, it should identify items of particular sensitivity (for both read and write access), and should (if appropriate) recommend specific security mechanisms to counter the threats.

(Ted Hardie) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2004-10-13 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART

His review:

I'm way out of my depth here, but certainly don't see anything that
disqualifies this draft for Informational RFC...

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

Comment (2004-10-04 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Section 2: the reference to RFC 2119 is broken ("RFC 2119..[Novell Em1]").

I think section 9 could be clearer about where the IANA-assigned base OID should be coming from, but I'll let Michelle decide if that should be a discuss or not.

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2004-10-12)
No email
send info
  In section 2, the document says:
  :
  : The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
  : "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 
  : document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119..[Novell Em1] 
  :
  s/..[Novell Em1]/[RFC2119]./

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) No Objection