Subject: RE: RE: moving access control discussion to LDUP

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:13:13 -0500

Kurt wrote:

Please note that I feel the LDUP WG should not undertake
the LDAP ACM work or any other new work.  The LDUP WG
needs to narrow its focus and trim its workload if it
is ever to successfully conclude.

> Please make specific recommendations about how
> the WG should trim its workload while still meeting
> all requirements specified in the requirements I-D.
> The rationale for phrasing my request in this way is
> that the requirements I-D has pass WG Last Call
> and a recommendation has been made for the ADs
> to take it to the IESG for consideration for an IETF
> Last Call. At this stage in a document's lifecycle, we
> cannot trim work from the charter unless we remove
> any affected requirements from that I-D, which would
> mean withdrawing the request from the ADs and would
> only serve to put the working group in a holding pattern
> while a round of mailing list deliberations over which
> requirements are too important to drop, etc.

And also I ask that the charter be clarified as to the
extent of work this WG is undertaking (or intends to
undertake).  In particular, the charter should state
whether or not the group intends to:
 1) Update LDAPv3 "core" specification (including
    its normative references),

John's and my position on that issue are very clear.
We believe that this is a technical issue that should be
discussed in the context of documents which may or
may not actually attempt to do this. I have not seen similar
concerns raised by any other working group member.

 2) Define an ACM for LDAPv3, and/or
 3) Define an authentication identity to
    authorization identity mapping scheme.

(Note that the mapping scheme is needed for an ACM
to provide any reasonable level of consistent access
to client entities in a replicated environment.)

Kurt

> The two items above have been added to the
> proposed WG charter to be posted shortly after this
> reply to your posting. After having a few other
> messages trickle into my mailbox out of time sequence,
> I have observed that there is one other person who
> has expressed concern over adding the ACM work
> to the charter. That's two WG members versus several
> who believe that it should be added. So, consensus still
> leans towards adding the ACM work rather than
> allowing the work to take place based on competing
> individual contributions.

Chris Apple

Currently self-employed pondering the meaning of life in Olde City,
Philadelphia, PA, US, Earth

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 10:29:51 -0800

>concerns raised by any other working group member.

I then ask that you clarify this in the charter.  That is,
add something like:
  This group may update the LDAPv3 "core" specification
  as necessary to deliver LDAP Replication.

Kurt

---

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:32:20 -0500

That's simple enough to do. We'll add it near the
paragraph that talks about X.500 - LDAP alignment
unless there are a substantial number of objections
to doing so posted to the list.

Chris.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:56:52 -0800

(This is a serious question, I am still trying to figure out
what is beyond scope of this working group.)

Is engineering a version 4 of LDAP within scope?

At 10:32 AM 2001-11-16, Chris Apple wrote:
>That's simple enough to do. We'll add...

---

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 17:54:03 -0500

No. But I don't see the value in writing that in...what is
this particular concern based on?

Chris.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:39:53 -0800

>this particular concern based on?

Again, I am still trying to figure out what is beyond scope
of this working group.

Can the previously suggested statement be further narrowed?
Say to:

  This group may extend the LDAPv3 "core" specification 
  as necessary to deliver LDAP Replication.  However,
  updating the LDAPv3 "core" specification is beyond scope
  of this working group.

---

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:24:55 -0500

All editors should respond with their opinions on Kurt's current text
proposal for clarifying the charter to the WG mailing list ASAP.

I believe it reflects the strategy that we currently are
pursuing because of LDAPv3 installed base at the time
of initial charter creation. However, I want to hear from
the editors if this language is too constraining based on
what we know about the problems we still have to solve.

Chris.

---

From: "John Strassner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:14:00 -0700

How about answering my previous questions first? Especially since no where
in the charter is this mentioned?

John

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 4:40 PM
To: Chris Apple
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: LDAPv4? (Was: Updating "core" specification)

---

From: "John Strassner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:09:54 -0700

Kurt,

I don't see how this can be a "serious" question. Where in the charter do
you read anything remotely resembling LDAPv4?

I'm still waiting for an answer to my earlier question about what,
specifically, you find so confusing about the charter and what,
specifically, you would reword. Questions like "what's not in the charter"
simply do not help.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:57 PM
To: Chris Apple
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: LDAPv4? (Was: Updating "core" specification)

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:55:26 -0800

>you read anything remotely resembling LDAPv4?

Chris asked the WG to consider an explicit statement regarding
the scope of updates to LDAP "core" specifications.  This could
be taken as allowing updates creating another version of LDAP.
Since I been unable to determine for myself what is beyond the
scope of this working group, I asked this question which I am
pleased was answered in a serious fashion.

>specifically, you would reword.

I assume you refer to your previous post
  http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/msg01235.html 

I took this as direction, not as a question, as I indicated
in my response:
  http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/msg01237.html

Anyways, as I've noted repeatedly in posts regarding this
particular issue, it is the lack of any statement as to what
is beyond the scope which is causing my confusion and concern.
I am trying my best to ask questions, with specific wording
suggestions, to address my confusion and this concern.

>Questions like "what's not in the charter" simply do not help.

Unfornately, it's what not in the charter which I find so
confusing and cause me the greatest concern.  I am trying
to resolve this by asking pointed questions and offering
specific suggestions which, I thought, was what you directed
me to do.

In a separate post you ask:
> How about answering my previous questions first?
> Especially since no where in the charter is this mentioned?

I hope the above answers your questions.  If not, please
post the questions again (or provide me with a reference to
the specific message containing the questions) and I'll try
again.

Also, if I have misinterpret either your or Chris's direction,
please advise.

Kurt