Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Schema for Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration version 3 (UDDIv3)
RFC 4403
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-05-16 |
06 | (System) | Changed document authors from "Kent Boogert, Bruce Bergeson" to "Kent Boogert, Bruce Bergeson, Vijay Nanjundaswamy" |
2012-08-22 |
06 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Bill Fenner |
2012-08-22 |
06 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2006-03-01 |
06 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
2006-03-01 |
06 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 4403' added by Amy Vezza |
2006-02-28 |
06 | (System) | RFC published |
2005-03-16 |
06 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2005-03-15 |
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2005-03-15 |
06 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2005-03-15 |
06 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2005-03-15 |
06 | Scott Hollenbeck | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-03-15 |
06 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bill Fenner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Bill Fenner |
2005-02-03 |
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-bergeson-uddi-ldap-schema-06.txt |
2005-01-20 |
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2005-01-20 |
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2005-01-20 |
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-bergeson-uddi-ldap-schema-05.txt |
2004-11-11 |
06 | Ted Hardie | Talked to Kurt about the IANA section; probably derived from BCP issue (which does not recommend a table format, even for large values). Next step … Talked to Kurt about the IANA section; probably derived from BCP issue (which does not recommend a table format, even for large values). Next step is to talk to Jim Semmershein about follow-up, then Kurt will help review Security section |
2004-10-15 |
06 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2004-10-15 |
06 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-10-14 |
2004-10-14 |
06 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Review Comments: We understand there to be 67 LDAP Descriptor registrations for the ldap-parameters registry. We are double-checking with an LDAP-type expert to verify … IANA Review Comments: We understand there to be 67 LDAP Descriptor registrations for the ldap-parameters registry. We are double-checking with an LDAP-type expert to verify what the assignments would actually be. It is possible that the SYNTAX is the same as the number assignment. We are confirming this. In RFC3383, section 3.3, it says x- and e- descriptors have separate registration procedures and for all "other descriptors require Expert Review to be registered". If we understand this correctly, there should be an expert review. Has this been completed yet? |
2004-10-14 |
06 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot discuss] The IANA considerations section says "we would like the IANA to register on Standards Action the following:" but Standards Action means standards-track according … [Ballot discuss] The IANA considerations section says "we would like the IANA to register on Standards Action the following:" but Standards Action means standards-track according to 2434 and this is Informational. If the registry is actually Standards Action, then these registrations aren't allowed; if the registry allows them, then this is confusing. There are 67 subsections in the IANA considerations section, each requesting the registration of an OID. It seems that the only one that needs to be *assigned* is the one referred to as IANA-ASSIGNED-OID, and the rest just need to be inserted into the registry? For myself, I can't find the registry that they're asking for assignments in so I can't compare with other LDAP assignments to see if this is normal. Michelle probably needs to look at this more closely. |
2004-10-14 |
06 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
2004-10-14 |
06 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin |
2004-10-13 |
06 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2004-10-13 |
06 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot comment] 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 … [Ballot comment] 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... |
2004-10-13 |
06 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-10-12 |
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot comment] In section 2, the document says: : : The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", : "SHOULD", "SHOULD … [Ballot comment] 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]./ |
2004-10-12 |
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] In section 8, the document says: : : ... With UDDIv3, publishers can digitally : sign entries enabling registry clients … [Ballot discuss] In section 8, the document says: : : ... With UDDIv3, publishers can digitally : sign entries enabling registry clients to validate the integrity of : UDDI entries read from the UDDIv3 registry by verifying the digital : signature. : First, a reference seems highly desirable. Second, how is the signer identified? The client needs to know how to determine whether the signer is appropriate. To make this determination, the identity of the signer needs to be mapped to the LDAP entry in a deterministic fashion. |
2004-10-12 |
06 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2004-10-12 |
06 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot discuss] I think that the Security Considerations section for a document like this should be similar to what is done for MIBs. That is, … [Ballot discuss] 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. |
2004-10-12 |
06 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Steve Bellovin |
2004-10-10 |
06 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2004-10-04 |
06 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Scott Hollenbeck has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Scott Hollenbeck |
2004-10-04 |
06 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot comment] 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 … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2004-10-04 |
06 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2004-09-29 |
06 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Hardie |
2004-09-29 |
06 | Ted Hardie | Ballot has been issued by Ted Hardie |
2004-09-29 |
06 | Ted Hardie | Created "Approve" ballot |
2004-09-29 |
06 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2004-09-29 |
06 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2004-09-29 |
06 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2004-09-15 |
06 | Michael Lee | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-10-14 by Michael Lee |
2004-09-15 |
06 | Michael Lee | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2004-10-14 by Michael Lee |
2004-09-14 |
06 | Ted Hardie | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2004-10-14 by Ted Hardie |
2004-09-14 |
06 | Ted Hardie | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Ted Hardie |
2004-09-14 |
06 | Ted Hardie | Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None |
2004-08-26 |
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-bergeson-uddi-ldap-schema-04.txt |
2004-06-24 |
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-bergeson-uddi-ldap-schema-03.txt |
2004-05-07 |
06 | Ted Hardie | State Changes to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation::External Party by Ted Hardie |
2004-05-07 |
06 | Ted Hardie | A comment from Chris Ridd at Isode: They have created lots of new attributes, but most of them use DirectoryString syntax. A lot of these … A comment from Chris Ridd at Isode: They have created lots of new attributes, but most of them use DirectoryString syntax. A lot of these are inappropriate and/or just wrong. For example uddiv3EntityModificationTime contains some kind of timestamp, but is a DirectoryString and not a GeneralizedTime. (So a value of "today" would be valid. So would other Unicode values.) The uddiUUID attribute appears to be for holding a UUID, which is a 16-byte long octet string and *not* a DirectoryString. There's an I-D describing UUIDs in the directory which perhaps the authors ought to read. |
2004-05-07 |
06 | Ted Hardie | LDAP directorate review, from Kurt; detailed comments sent to authors. General comment: I would like to see this document include more examples. I find it … LDAP directorate review, from Kurt; detailed comments sent to authors. General comment: I would like to see this document include more examples. I find it very hard to review particular uses of LDAP syntax, matching rules, and other elements as currently written. I suspect I've only touched on problems here. Hopefully my comments offer enough food for thought for the Authors to not only address specific issues I've raised, but address issues which are likely lurking. |
2004-03-25 |
06 | Ted Hardie | submitted to the LDAP Directorate for comments |
2004-03-25 |
06 | Ted Hardie | submitted to the LDAP Directorate for comments |
2004-03-25 |
06 | Ted Hardie | Draft Added by Ted Hardie |
2003-12-18 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-bergeson-uddi-ldap-schema-02.txt |
2002-05-31 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-bergeson-uddi-ldap-schema-01.txt |
2002-02-27 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-bergeson-uddi-ldap-schema-00.txt |