Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Considerations for the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP)
RFC 4520
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14 |
07 | (System) | Notify list changed from kurt@openLDAP.org, rlmorgan@washington.edu to (None) |
2012-08-22 |
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Bert Wijnen |
2012-08-22 |
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Bill Fenner |
2012-08-22 |
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Allison Mankin |
2006-06-12 |
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
2006-06-12 |
07 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 4520 BCP 64' added by Amy Vezza |
2006-06-08 |
07 | (System) | RFC published |
2006-02-09 |
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2006-02-08 |
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2006-02-08 |
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2006-02-08 |
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2006-02-08 |
07 | Ted Hardie | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ted Hardie |
2006-02-08 |
07 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] Clearing my Discuss: The issue concerned the use of the word "owner" for the registry objects, particularly the IESG owning them. Kurt pointed … [Ballot comment] Clearing my Discuss: The issue concerned the use of the word "owner" for the registry objects, particularly the IESG owning them. Kurt pointed out there is much precedent, including some words in RFC 2434, and in many IANA registry labels themselves (though not all). I think there is still some consideration to be made of this, for instance, the IESG point, but I can agree that this document does not have to be the place. I'll send a comment for rfc2434bis and I suggest that this be raised by the IANA RFP parties (the registry objects, change control versus ownership terms for IETF). I've changed my position to No-Obj |
2006-02-08 |
07 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] Thoughts I have for personal followup of my issue about the term "owner" (especially IESG owning) even though it has precedent: I'll make … [Ballot comment] Thoughts I have for personal followup of my issue about the term "owner" (especially IESG owning) even though it has precedent: I'll make a comment on the rfc2434bis and I'll comment towards the discussions on future IANA service. I'm pretty sure we need to clarify this issue. But this document need not solve the problem, so I've turned my position to a no-objection, with thanks to Kurt for explaining the whole context to me. |
2006-02-08 |
07 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to No Objection from Abstain by Allison Mankin |
2006-02-08 |
07 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot comment] Thoughts I have for personal followup of my issue about the term "owner" (especially IESG owning) even though it has precedent: I'll make … [Ballot comment] Thoughts I have for personal followup of my issue about the term "owner" (especially IESG owning) even though it has precedent: I'll make a comment on the rfc2434bis and I'll comment towards the discussions on future IANA service. I'm pretty sure we need to clarify this issue. But this document need not solve the problem, so I've turned my position to a no-objection, with thanks to Curt for explaining the whole context to me. |
2006-02-08 |
07 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to Abstain from Discuss by Allison Mankin |
2006-02-02 |
07 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bill Fenner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Bill Fenner |
2006-02-02 |
07 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot discuss] Since bcp64 is the last remaining document in the 20-document ldapbis dependency graph, and this issue was also in the existing BCP 64 … [Ballot discuss] Since bcp64 is the last remaining document in the 20-document ldapbis dependency graph, and this issue was also in the existing BCP 64 without the Internet falling down around us, I'll clear my discuss without requiring any change. |
2006-02-01 |
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-bcp64-07.txt |
2006-01-26 |
07 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot discuss] [This issue remains in -06] It seems misleading to describe a keyword as "a case-insensitive string of UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded Unicode … [Ballot discuss] [This issue remains in -06] It seems misleading to describe a keyword as "a case-insensitive string of UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded Unicode [Unicode] restricted to the <keystring> production.". The <keystring> production restricts strings to a subset of US-ASCII, so UTF-8 need not enter into things. Adding (or appropriately referring to) the productions from RFC 3629 might be appropriate, if I'm guessing the intent properly perhaps the following makes sense: keychar = ALPHA / DIGIT / HYPHEN / UTF8-hichar UTF8-hichar = UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4 ; either "import" UTF8-2, UTF8-3 and UTF8-4" from RFC 3629 ; or simply replicate them UTF8-2 = %xC2-DF UTF8-tail UTF8-3 = %xE0 %xA0-BF UTF8-tail / %xE1-EC 2( UTF8-tail ) / %xED %x80-9F UTF8-tail / %xEE-EF 2( UTF8-tail ) UTF8-4 = %xF0 %x90-BF 2( UTF8-tail ) / %xF1-F3 3( UTF8-tail ) / %xF4 %x80-8F 2( UTF8-tail ) UTF8-tail = %x80-BF (This error exists in RFC 3383 too, but it would be nice to fix) |
2006-01-26 |
07 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Bert Wijnen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Bert Wijnen |
2006-01-24 |
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-bcp64-06.txt |
2005-09-30 |
07 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-09-29 |
2005-09-29 |
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2005-09-29 |
07 | (System) | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by IESG Secretary |
2005-09-29 |
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley |
2005-09-29 |
07 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot discuss] "The requester is viewed as the owner of values registered under Expert Review." "For registrations...owned by the IESG" This terminology of … [Ballot discuss] "The requester is viewed as the owner of values registered under Expert Review." "For registrations...owned by the IESG" This terminology of ownership of registrations is problematic in our world of IPR. Please substitutue "has change control"? This also helps with the fact that the requester in the case of the Expert Review situations may be representing another standards body. ------ Procedural request: the AD should tell IESG/IANA who the Expert Reviewer is, and who the Secondary is (and IANA should tell us, if they're incumbent, whether they're performing well). |
2005-09-29 |
07 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot discuss] "The requester is viewed as the owner of values registered under Expert Review." "For registrations...owned by the IESG" This terminology of … [Ballot discuss] "The requester is viewed as the owner of values registered under Expert Review." "For registrations...owned by the IESG" This terminology of ownership of registrations is problematic in our world of IPR. Please substitutue "has change control"? This also helps with the fact that the requester in the case of the Expert Review situations may be representing another standards body. ------ Procedural request: the AD should tell IESG/IANA who the Expert Reviewer is, and who the Secondary is (and IANA should tell us, if they're incumbent, whether they're performing well). |
2005-09-29 |
07 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot discuss] one but last para of sect 3.1 states: Internet Private Enterprise Numbers (1.3.6.1.4.1.x) are assigned by IANA <http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/enterprise.pl>. Practices … [Ballot discuss] one but last para of sect 3.1 states: Internet Private Enterprise Numbers (1.3.6.1.4.1.x) are assigned by IANA <http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/enterprise.pl>. Practices for IANA assignment of Internet Private Enterprise Numbers is detailed in STD 16 [RFC1155]. But this is (no longer true. In fact RFC2578 has the definitions as is also indicated on the IANA web page. last para of sect 3.1 states: To avoid interoperability problems between early implementations of a "work in progress" and implementations of the published specification (e.g., the RFC), experimental OIDs SHOULD be used in "works in progress" and early implementations. OIDs under the Internet Experimental OID arc (1.3.6.1.3.x) may be used for this purpose. Practices for IANA assignment of these Internet Experimental numbers is detailed in STD 16 [RFC1155]. Again I believe it is RFC2578 (sect 4) that defines the "exprimental" branch in the OID tree. IANA has a (?) on their pages, that porbably needs updating too While |
2005-09-29 |
07 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin |
2005-09-29 |
07 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
2005-09-29 |
07 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2005-09-29 |
07 | Alex Zinin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alex Zinin by Alex Zinin |
2005-09-29 |
07 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2005-09-28 |
07 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Comments: Upon approval of this document the IANA will create 4 new registries for LDAP Syntax, Search Scope, Filter Choice, ModifyRequest operation, and authzId … IANA Comments: Upon approval of this document the IANA will create 4 new registries for LDAP Syntax, Search Scope, Filter Choice, ModifyRequest operation, and authzId prefixes. These new registries will be found at the following: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ldap-parameters |
2005-09-28 |
07 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot discuss] It seems misleading to describe a keyword as "a case-insensitive string of UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded Unicode [Unicode] restricted to the <keystring> … [Ballot discuss] It seems misleading to describe a keyword as "a case-insensitive string of UTF-8 [RFC3629] encoded Unicode [Unicode] restricted to the <keystring> production.". The <keystring> production restricts strings to a subset of US-ASCII, so UTF-8 need not enter into things. Adding (or appropriately referring to) the productions from RFC 3629 might be appropriate, if I'm guessing the intent properly perhaps the following makes sense: keychar = ALPHA / DIGIT / HYPHEN / UTF8-hichar UTF8-hichar = UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4 ; either "import" UTF8-2, UTF8-3 and UTF8-4" from RFC 3629 ; or simply replicate them UTF8-2 = %xC2-DF UTF8-tail UTF8-3 = %xE0 %xA0-BF UTF8-tail / %xE1-EC 2( UTF8-tail ) / %xED %x80-9F UTF8-tail / %xEE-EF 2( UTF8-tail ) UTF8-4 = %xF0 %x90-BF 2( UTF8-tail ) / %xF1-F3 3( UTF8-tail ) / %xF4 %x80-8F 2( UTF8-tail ) UTF8-tail = %x80-BF (This error exists in RFC 3383 too, but it would be nice to fix) |
2005-09-28 |
07 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
2005-09-28 |
07 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
2005-09-26 |
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2005-09-26 |
07 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] From Gen-ART review by Joel Halpern: Question: Based on the issues that have been raised about reviews recently, should this document be more … [Ballot comment] From Gen-ART review by Joel Halpern: Question: Based on the issues that have been raised about reviews recently, should this document be more specific as to what kinds of issues the expert reviewer is to look for in each kind of item to be reviewed, and why? (I am not arguing with the WGs choice of mechanism, just trying to head off trouble that can be foreseen.) [BC - I think that would be asking too much] Question: Is the last sentence of the second paragraph of 3.4 intended to call for expert review of all descriptors, or only of descriptors referencing different object identifiers from an already registered descriptor with the same name? While I find this verbiage awkward in the other places it is used, this particular usage is less clear than the others. [BC - a small clarification would help] Editorial: In section 3, the word "expecting" is almost certainly "excepting". |
2005-09-26 |
07 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter |
2005-09-23 |
07 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot comment] Some small editorial things. Section 3: "IANA may reject obviously bogus registrations described." appears to be a sentence fragment. "Other LDAP values, expecting … [Ballot comment] Some small editorial things. Section 3: "IANA may reject obviously bogus registrations described." appears to be a sentence fragment. "Other LDAP values, expecting those in private-use name spaces, SHOULD be registered." "expecting"? Maybe "except"? "or otherwise recongize unregistered" s/recongize/recognize/ |
2005-09-23 |
07 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-09-21 |
07 | Ted Hardie | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-09-29 by Ted Hardie |
2005-09-21 |
07 | Ted Hardie | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from In Last Call by Ted Hardie |
2005-09-21 |
07 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ted Hardie |
2005-09-21 |
07 | Ted Hardie | Ballot has been issued by Ted Hardie |
2005-09-21 |
07 | Ted Hardie | Created "Approve" ballot |
2005-09-07 |
07 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2005-09-07 |
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2005-09-06 |
07 | Ted Hardie | Last Call was requested by Ted Hardie |
2005-09-06 |
07 | Ted Hardie | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Ted Hardie |
2005-09-06 |
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2005-09-06 |
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2005-09-06 |
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2005-07-21 |
07 | Dinara Suleymanova | Draft Added by Dinara Suleymanova in state Publication Requested |
2005-02-22 |
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-bcp64-05.txt |
2004-10-29 |
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-bcp64-04.txt |
2004-06-08 |
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-bcp64-03.txt |
2004-02-16 |
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-bcp64-02.txt |
2003-10-27 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-bcp64-01.txt |
2003-06-23 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-ldapbis-bcp64-00.txt |