Draft: draft-zeilenga-ldap-readentry-04.txt Reviewer: Scott Brim Date: 01 June 2005 Summary: No big issues. One logistics question, a few nits, and some suggestions on how to tighten up the text ... Comments: draft-zeilenga-ldap-readentry-04.txt has dependencies on other LDAP drafts, and references have "-xx" in them (not specific draft numbers). draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol is in AD Evaluation. draft-ietf-ldapbis-roadmap is "not assigned yet" draft-ietf-ldapbis-models is through. draft-zeilenga-ldap-assert is in last call. There are also some informative references to draft-ietf-ldapbis-bcp64 (not assigned yet) and draft-zeilenga-ldap-uuid (AD follow-up). What's the plan? Wait for all of them and publish them together? idnits says: Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html : Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate... * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate. After 6 May 2005, submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted.) Some text suggestions: If the update operation fails (in either normal or control processing), no response control is provided. I know this means that no response control is provided for the post-read request, but as a naive reader I had to stop and think whether that meant no response was provided to the update request at all. Not knowing the protocol well, it's hard for me to suggest an improvement, but consider adding "to the post-read request control". The Pre-Read and Post-Read controls may be combined with each other and/or with a variety of other controls. When combined with the assertion control [Assertion] and/or the manageDsaIT control [RFC3296], the semantics of each control included in the combination apply. The Pre-Read and Post-Read controls may be combined with other controls as detailed in other technical specifications. You could delete the last sentence, which is somewhat redundant, if you added "as detailed in other specifications" to the first sentence. The controls defined in this document extend update operations to support read capabilities. Servers MUST ensure that the client is authorized both for reading of the information provided in this control in addition to ensuring the client is authorized to perform the requested directory update. That last sentence has too much in it and probably isn't English. How about "Servers MUST ensure that the client is authorized both to read the information provided in this control and to perform the requested directory update"? A small nit: sometimes it says "a LDAP control" and sometimes "an LDAP control".