[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] X.500/LDAP attribute profile status
Yes, tags in general are a rather painful part of LDAP. My impression is that language tags do get some use in some communities. I would be prepared to confer with some LDAP experts to try to get a consensus opinion on handling this within the next two weeks. - RL "Bob" On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Scott Cantor wrote: > I've uploaded a post-CD01 working draft for consideration as CD-02. > > Mark Wahl's public comments and my responses can be viewed in the comments > archive here: > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/security-services-comment/200702/thread > s.html > > The "non-string-encoding" comment is a replay of a comment that led to SAML > 2.0 errata that was erroneously omitted from the new profile. I reapplied > that errata, and Mark was satisfied with that wording. > > The other comment on attribute options was more significant and hasn't been > raised before. It needs review and discussion unless my proposed draft is > satisfactory. Pending TC discussion, I chose his first option of three, > which was to explicitly rule them out of scope of this profile, effectively > ignoring them. > > His other options amount to either letting them influence the profile, or > saying in effect that attribute types that include them wouldn't be covered > by this profile. I would be ok with the first one if people think they're > important. Since I've never heard of them before, I assumed they were fairly > esoteric, but then I'm not much for LDAP, so my (lack of) familiarity > probably doesn't mean much. > > Sorry for not raising all this in time for last week's call, I wasn't aware > the review period had ended so hadn't prepared the doc for discussion. > > -- Scott > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]