[x500standard] Re: New defect report on missing organisation information
- From: denis.pinkas@xxxxxxxx
- To: x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 12:12:42 +0200
I would like to first point out that there is currently a lack of
standardization for the abbreviations used to represent these attributes.
Values like O= OU= CN= DC= , as far as I remember, only appear in an
informational annex of one standard (I don't recall which one).
We should have some kind of official registry for attribute abbreviations;
Have a defect report on this point would make sense.
If a new attribute is ever defined to solve Stefan's concerns in another
committee or in this committee,
an abbreviation should be proposed for that new attribute.
Let me say again that anybody (not even a standardization committee) can
defined a new attribute using an OID.
There is no need to use the ISO / ITU-T tree, unless the attribute is
defined in an ISO/ITU-T document.
Now, the remaining question is : what is really the problem ?
We still don't have a clear statement of what the problem is.
I believe that it is necessary to get it before we can think of a solution
either in this committee or in another committee.
Denis
De : "Steve Kille" <steve.kille@xxxxxxxxx>
A : <x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc : "'Erik Andersen'" <era@xxxxxxx>
Date : 02/04/2012 11:36
Objet : [x500standard] Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: New defect report on
missing organisation information
Envoyé par : x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
David, Erik,
IANA registration is the natural IETF approach to handling extensions.
Because the X.500 and LDAP schema use OIDs, there is a framework for
non-conflicting vendor/user extensions (unlike the typical X- provision of
Internet standards).
This extensibility is vital for a huge number of directory deployments. It
also means that there is no requirement to standardize every single
option.
I think that it was a very good X.500 design choice to include some
standard
schema. The IETF have also built on this (such as inetOrgPerson in RFC
2798). There are some "obvious" gaps. For example, the inability
to
associate an email address with any object other than a person.
The change in question seems sensible, although I did not think of vital
importance.
I suspect that there are a number of common schema changes that many
organizations/deployments make, where it would be preferable to have a
standardized schema.
I'd like to see this as an effort that revisits both X.500 and LDAP
standard
schema, and gives a refresh of the "core", rather than this single
isolated
change.
Regards
Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:x500standard-
> bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Chadwick
> Sent: 01 April 2012 13:35
> To: x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Erik Andersen
> Subject: [x500standard] Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: New defect report on
> missing organisation information
>
> Hi Erik
>
> because we do not have a functioning attribute registry, then you have
> chosen the defect report as a workaround. An attribute registry, along
> the lines of the various registries run by IANA, would have been a
> valuable service for X.500 to have given the world two decades ago. But
> I dont see it happening anytime soon, so I support your defect report
> route as a way of getting an internationally recognised and supported
> attribute into the standard. Each country is entitled to vote on this,
> and if there is sufficient support then the new attribute will be added
> to the standard. If most countries reject the defect report then you
> will know that the attribute does not have sufficient support
> internationally
>
> regards
>
> David
>
>
> On 31/03/2012 12:14, Erik Andersen wrote:
> > Hi Sharon,
> >
> > Nice to have you back. I have been missing your for a long time.
> >
> > We do not have a clear issue here. It is true that if you have control
> > of an OID branch, you can define your own attribute types. This one of
> > the great feature of the OID concept. However, it is also at times
> > causes a disarray. As an example, LDAP has the concept of controls
where
> > a control is assigned an OID. This has caused a large number of
controls
> > to be defined in very diverted parts of the OID tree, which makes it
> > difficult to get a total picture about what useful controls that are
> > available. Often they are allocated from company branches, companies
> > that may not exist tomorrow.
> >
> > You could say the same about certificate extension. An uncontrolled
> > development of extension is against the spirit of standardisation and
> > causes interworking problems.
> >
> > If an organisation needs an attribute type that is very specific to
the
> > organisation, it is reasonable that they use some odd OID. However, if
> > we talk about an attribute type that is general useful, it is not very
> > productive if everyone defines their own version of that attribute
type
> > with different OIDs. I believe this is the case here.
> >
> > We do not have good procedures for handling this case. A four years
> > cycle is not the optimal solution. We have to be a little flexible
here.
> > By putting it up as a defect report people have the opportunity to
> > discuss whether a suggested attribute type is in fact general useable
or
> > whether it is specific to a particular organisation.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Erik
> >
> > *Fra:*x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *På vegne af *Sharon Boeyen
> > *Sendt:* 30. marts 2012 18:59
> > *Til:* x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > *Emne:* [x500standard] Re: SV: Re: SV: Re: New defect report on
missing
> > organisation information
> >
> > Erik I agree with Denis that this is an enhancement and not a defect.
> > The standard allows other attributes to be defined by any entity. The
> > fact that in SOME environments an additional attribute would be
helpful
> > does not make this a defect in the standard, but rather a potential
> > enhancement.
> >
> > *From:*x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > [mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Erik
Andersen
> > *Sent:* Friday, March 30, 2012 12:07 PM
> > *To:* x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > *Subject:* [x500standard] SV: Re: SV: Re: New defect report on missing
> > organisation information
> >
> > HI Denis,
> >
> > I will give it a shot.
> >
> > Erik
> >
> > *Fra:*x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > [mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > <mailto:[mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]> *På vegne af
> > *denis.pinkas@xxxxxxxx <mailto:denis.pinkas@xxxxxxxx>
> > *Sendt:* 30. marts 2012 18:01
> > *Til:* x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > *Emne:* [x500standard] Re: SV: Re: New defect report on missing
> > organisation information
> >
> > Erik,
> >
> > You speak of VAT-number while others were speaking of something else.
> > I have the feeling that we have a solution but that we don't know what
> > the problem is
> > or that we don't agree that we share the same problem.
> >
> > We should start by a problem statement, which currently is far from
> > crystal clear.
> >
> > Proposing an ASN.1 syntax without the explanations is not the solution
> > either.
> >
> > The defect report is currently not correctly presented and would need
to
> > be fully rewritten.
> >
> > Denis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > De : "Erik Andersen" <era@xxxxxxx <mailto:era@xxxxxxx>>
> > A : <x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> > Date : 30/03/2012 17:51
> > Objet : [x500standard] SV: Re: New defect report on missing
organisation
> > information
> > Envoyé par : x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Denis,
> >
> > Thanks for making the effort to read the defect report and for the
> > correction. I am not used to that.
> >
> > There is no clear border line between a defect report and an
> > enhancement. Added a single attribute type has no affect on the
> > remaining of the specification and is therefore quite safe. I did not
> > invent the requirement for the new attribute type, but recognised that
> > we have been missing such an attribute type for a long time to enter
> > e.g. a VAT-number. The lack of such a capability could be labelled as
an
> > omission, which is one of the things that can justify a defect report.
> >
> > The seventh edition of X.520 is at its final stage where it is not
> > possible to add such an attribute as part of the extension process,
and
> > if we tried, we would sneak it in. Now, we do it more openly. Waiting
> > for a possible eight edition of X.520 would delay the solution by four
> > years.
> >
> > The proposed solution will eventually end up in a Draft Technical
> > Corrigendum, that will go out for vote within both ISO and ITU-T.
> >
> > Erik
> >
> >
> > *Fra:*x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > [mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *På vegne af
> > *denis.pinkas@xxxxxxxx <mailto:denis.pinkas@xxxxxxxx>*
> > Sendt:* 30. marts 2012 17:00*
> > Til:* x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>*
> > Cc:* Directory list*
> > Emne:* [x500standard] Re: New defect report on missing organisation
> > information
> >
> > Hummm !
> >
> > The "defect" is presented this way:
> >
> > The organizationName is not always enough to identify a organisation.
At
> > times an additional information necessary, like some kind of
identifier
> > issued by the authorities.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > First of all, the sentence is not English. At the minimum a verb is
> > missing in the second sentence.
> >
> > But more important, I disagree that it is a "defect report". It looks
> > like an enhancement.
> >
> > Then, the "pseudo defect" is not correctly characterized.
> >
> > So if the question is not correctly stated, how could any solution be
> > appropriate ?
> >
> > Denis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > De : "Erik Andersen" <era@xxxxxxx <mailto:era@xxxxxxx>>
> > A : "Directory list" <x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:x500standard@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> > Date : 30/03/2012 14:41
> > Objet : [x500standard] New defect report on missing organisation
> > information
> > Envoyé par : x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:x500standard-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have issued a new defect report 381. See
> > http://www.x500standard.com/index.php?n=Ig.DefectReports
> >
> > Any comments?
> >
> > Erik
> >
>
> --
>
> **********************************************************
> *******
> David W. Chadwick, BSc PhD
> Professor of Information Systems Security
> School of Computing, University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7NF
> Skype Name: davidwchadwick
> Tel: +44 1227 82 3221
> Fax +44 1227 762 811
> Mobile: +44 77 96 44 7184
> Email: D.W.Chadwick@xxxxxxxxxx
> Home Page: http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/dwc8/index.html
> Research Web site:
> http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/research/groups/iss/index.html
> Entrust key validation string: MLJ9-DU5T-HV8J
> PGP Key ID is 0xBC238DE5
>
> **********************************************************
> *******
> -----
> www.x500standard.com: The central source for information on the X.500
> Directory Standard.
-----
www.x500standard.com: The central source for information on the X.500
Directory Standard.
Other related posts:
