Re: [security-services] X.500/LDAP attribute profile status

["RL 'Bob' Morgan" <rlmorgan@washington.edu>]

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
>
>
>