From subs-reminder@imc.org Mon Dec 2 22:48:45 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA24916 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 22:48:45 -0500 (EST) From: subs-reminder@imc.org Received: (from phoffman@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gB33pSO19849; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 19:51:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 19:51:28 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200212030351.gB33pSO19849@above.proper.com> To: ldup-archive@ietf.org Subject: [[410602044]] Subscription to ietf-ldup for ldup-archive@lists.ietf.org Greetings. This message is a periodic reminder that ldup-archive@lists.ietf.org is subscribed to the ietf-ldup mailing list. There are two purposes for this message: - If this message is bounced by your mail server, I can remove you from the mailing list and reduce waste of bandwidth and resources. (If you are reading this message, it clearly didn't get bounced!) - Some people stay subscribed to mailing lists even though they do not want to because they do not know how to unsubscribe. If you want to stay subscribed to the ietf-ldup mailing list, you do not need to do anything. Feel free to delete this message. On the other hand, if you want to unsubscribe from this list, simply go to the following link: If for some reason you cannot go to that web site, you can also unsubscribe by email; however, doing so is not as likely to get you unsubscribed as the web site is. To unsubscribe using email, you can respond to this message and I will unsubscribe you by hand in the next few days. Again, this is not assured to work because your mail system may make it impossible for me to determine who you are or what you want to unsubscribe to. Alternatively, you can send a plain-text message to: ietf-ldup-request@imc.org with the single word unsubscribe in the body of the message. This last method assumes that the "From:" address in your mail is "ldup-archive@lists.ietf.org". Again, using the web site above is more likely to work than this method (due to limitations in Majordomo, the mailing list software we currently use). If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. --Paul Hoffman, list administrator From subs-reminder@imc.org Mon Dec 2 22:51:06 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA25002 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 22:51:06 -0500 (EST) From: subs-reminder@imc.org Received: (from phoffman@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gB33rnh20144; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 19:53:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 19:53:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200212030353.gB33rnh20144@above.proper.com> To: ldup-archive@ietf.org Subject: [[578569289]] Subscription to ietf-ldup for ldup-archive@lists.ietf.org Greetings. This message is a periodic reminder that ldup-archive@lists.ietf.org is subscribed to the ietf-ldup mailing list. There are two purposes for this message: - If this message is bounced by your mail server, I can remove you from the mailing list and reduce waste of bandwidth and resources. (If you are reading this message, it clearly didn't get bounced!) - Some people stay subscribed to mailing lists even though they do not want to because they do not know how to unsubscribe. If you want to stay subscribed to the ietf-ldup mailing list, you do not need to do anything. Feel free to delete this message. On the other hand, if you want to unsubscribe from this list, simply go to the following link: If for some reason you cannot go to that web site, you can also unsubscribe by email; however, doing so is not as likely to get you unsubscribed as the web site is. To unsubscribe using email, you can respond to this message and I will unsubscribe you by hand in the next few days. Again, this is not assured to work because your mail system may make it impossible for me to determine who you are or what you want to unsubscribe to. Alternatively, you can send a plain-text message to: ietf-ldup-request@imc.org with the single word unsubscribe in the body of the message. This last method assumes that the "From:" address in your mail is "ldup-archive@lists.ietf.org". Again, using the web site above is more likely to work than this method (due to limitations in Majordomo, the mailing list software we currently use). If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. --Paul Hoffman, list administrator From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Sat Dec 7 00:52:34 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA10350 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 00:52:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gB75lUl05839 for ietf-ldup-bks; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 21:47:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from dns.caledonia.net (dns.caledonia.net [207.40.197.238]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gB75lQg05833 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 21:47:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from D7ST2111 (pool-141-151-16-238.phil.east.verizon.net [141.151.16.238]) by dns.caledonia.net; Fri, 06 Dec 2002 22:46:10 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Chris Apple" To: Subject: Proposed LDUP WG Meeting Minutes Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 00:46:40 -0500 Organization: DSI-Consulting, Inc. Message-ID: <002101c29db4$06302d90$0400a8c0@D7ST2111> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Please post comments and corrections to the list. The meeting minutes are due on December 16th to the secretariat. Therefore, we can only accept comments and corrections posted to the mailing list prior to 1700 US Eastern Time. LDUP WG Meeting Minutes November 20, 2002 We initiated a chat conference with remote attendees using the facilities provided. Roger G. Harrison volunteered to take notes for the meeting minutes. The co-chair in attendance, Chris Apple, spoke on behalf of remote attendees and displayed the chat conference room window on the overhead screen while doing so. Some WG members in the meeting room were also in the chat conference room and made comments there in response to comments from remote attendees. We reviewed the agenda and there were no changes requested. Chris Apple gave a brief overview of current WG deliverables status. The requirements document has been published as an RFC LCUP's WG last call concluded and a substantial number of issues were raised. The document editors, the remote WG attendees in this case, are working to resolve the issues. LCUP will go through a second WG Last Call after it is revised. Kurt Zeilenga led a discussion about eventual convergence for LCUP. The current proposal from WG fails to provide eventual convergence of updates made to server at client. Kurt believes that eventual convergence is a strong requirement based on conversations with authors of LCUP. Kurt and colleagues have developed a protocol that they believe does provide convergence, but it is too chatty. Question: can we solve problem and still meet other LCUP Requirements. In particular, can we do it without maintaining session state? The general belief is no. Current LCUP eventual convergence status: we understand the problems and have explored ideas to solve them, but the feeling is that we're not at the end of LCUP effort, we're in the middle. There are still significant engineering issues to be resolved. There was some discussion held during this LCUP topic that is reflected in the chat conference room archive. The discussion that still needs to occur on this topic is largely in the technical details. Chris Apple recommended that the discussion Be moved to the mailing list. Mark Wahl requested that the LCUP authors publish a revised specification before the next IETF meeting. We acknowledged that there have been rumblings of concluding WG. Chris Apple has talked with several people to get perspectives and proposed a path to conclusion of work for WG to consider. The proposal was reviewed by John Strassner and Patrick Faltstrom. The presentation covered the state of various WG deliverables and followed that by a proposal from the co-chairs to proceed with an aim of publishing LCUP as a standards track document and all other documents as either Informational or Experimental depending on the nature of their content. There was some discussion about the usage profile document being more appropriate as an Informational document than Experimental as proposed by the co-chairs. The general feeling of the room was that Informational would be more appropriate for the usage profile document. The proposal also mentions referencing X.500 BAC and/or the recent I-Ds written by Kurt Zeilenga and Steven Legg related to the X.500 administrative model. The WG chairs also proposed that they would request that the LDAP Directorate to review those I-Ds from Kurt and Steven with that context in mind. There was some concern expressed over giving more weight to the recommendations of the LDAP Directorate than the rest of the WG. These concerns were discussed and resolved by the co-chair emphasizing that Kurt Zeilenga was correct in his observation that the LDAP Directorate not receive more weight than the WG members in evaluation of consensus. It was pointed out by Chris Apple that volunteers are willing to continue and/or take over editing documents. The document for which there is no confirmed volunteer for editor is the main LDUP protocol specification. The current editor of that document, Tim Hahn recommended that John McMeeking take over. The co-chairs will approach John about doing this. The co-chair's proposal also indicates a target date for completing all documents by June 2003. Completion in the context of this proposal means the documents are ready to enter WG last call or have already completed WG last call. There was some concern expressed by Ed Reed over the normal use of a WG Last Call in relation to LDUP documents in their present state because he doesn't believe that this could be accomplished by that date. In particular, Ed sees the administrative and access control models as potential deadlocks. Chris Apple replies that we would attempt to use external documents for access control and that the administrative model proposal was on the table in the form of an individually contributed I-D. Mark Wahl asked if there would be more than one vendor who is willing to implement in a way that implementation interoperability can be tested. Chris Apple responded that we don't have a clear answer and that this is the primary reason for suggesting experimental publication for most LDUP documents. Perhaps the best thing is to publish the experiment and let the market decide the answers. Ed Reed then proposed that the documents simply be frozen and published as Experimental. Chris Apple responded that this was more or less what he hopes to accomplish but wants to have a last chance to remove gross inconsistencies before publication. Mark Wahl made an alternate proposal for concluding LDUP by suggesting that the WG consider putting drafts back to individual submission status as was done in LDAPEXT when it was concluding. Chris Apple concluded the meeting by indicating that both the proposal from the co-chairs and the proposal from Mark Wahl be discussed on the mailing list. If consensus can be established on one of the proposals, the co-chairs will take appropriate actions to implement that consensus. For the case of the co-chairs' proposal, this means revising the LDUP WG Charter. For the case of Mark Wahl's proposal, the WG simply concludes after attempting to achieve consensus on a revised LCUP specification and does not attempt to do more work as a chartered IETF group on other LDUP specifications. Chris Apple - Principal Architect DSI Consulting, Inc. mailto:capple@dsi-consulting.net http://www.dsi-consulting.com From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 9 05:43:46 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04392 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 05:43:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gB9Ad3N16727 for ietf-ldup-bks; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 02:39:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from wiproecmx1.wipro.com (wiproecmx1.wipro.com [164.164.31.5]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gB9Acwg16723 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 02:38:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from ecvwall1.wipro.com (ecvwall1.wipro.com [10.200.52.11]) by wiproecmx1.wipro.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id gB9Ab7n27074 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:07:07 +0530 (IST) Received: from hyd-mdp-msg.wipro.com ([10.150.50.99]) by blr-ec-bh1.wipro.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:08:51 +0530 Received: from mdpps31700 ([192.168.143.26]) by hyd-mdp-msg.wipro.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:08:50 +0530 Reply-To: From: "Basava Harish" To: Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:08:50 +0530 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0049_01C29F9D.434C7040" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2002 10:38:50.0849 (UTC) FILETIME=[29A26510:01C29F6F] Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C29F9D.434C7040 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit subscribe ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C29F9D.434C7040 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IjIKAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEGgAMADgAAANIHDAAJABAACAAAAAEABwEB A5AGAGQEAAAkAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADADYAAAAAAAIBcQAB AAAAFgAAAAHCn28n4qmF+/msiUNgg0gQh9a1lKMAAAIBHQwBAAAAHQAAAFNNVFA6QkFTQVZBLkhB UklTSEBXSVBSTy5DT00AAAAACwABDgAAAABAAAYOAHRTC2+fwgECAQoOAQAAABgAAAAAAAAAmyt8 IRabmE+86APjgYpJn8KAAAALAB8OAQAAAAIBCRABAAAAZwAAAGMAAACBAAAATFpGdfvEQL4DAAoA cmNwZzEyNRYyAPgLYG4OEDAzM08B9wKkA+MCAGNoCsBzsGV0MCAHEwKAfQqBknYIkHdrC4BkNAxg DmMAUAsDC7Ugc3ViuQTyYmUKogqAEeEAFQAACwABgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAA4UAAAAA AAADAAOACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAQhQAAAAAAAAMAB4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAA AFKFAAAnagEAHgAJgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAVIUAAAEAAAAEAAAAOS4wAB4ACoAIIAYA AAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAADaFAAABAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAeAAuACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAA3 hQAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAHgAMgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAOIUAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAsA DYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAIKFAAABAAAACwA6gAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAADoUA AAAAAAADADyACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAARhQAAAAAAAAMAPYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABG AAAAABiFAAAAAAAACwBSgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAABoUAAAAAAAADAFOACCAGAAAAAADA AAAAAAAARgAAAAABhQAAAAAAAAIB+A8BAAAAEAAAAJsrfCEWm5hPvOgD44GKSZ8CAfoPAQAAABAA AACbK3whFpuYT7zoA+OBikmfAgH7DwEAAACkAAAAAAAAADihuxAF5RAaobsIACsqVsIAAFBTVFBS WC5ETEwAAAAAAAAAAE5JVEH5v7gBAKoAN9luAAAAQzpcRG9jdW1lbnRzIGFuZCBTZXR0aW5nc1xi YXNhdmFoLk1EUFBTMzE3MDBcTG9jYWwgU2V0dGluZ3NcQXBwbGljYXRpb24gRGF0YVxNaWNyb3Nv ZnRcT3V0bG9va1xvdXRsb29rLnBzdAADAP4PBQAAAAMADTT9NwAAAgF/AAEAAAA3AAAAPEpJRVBM TU9JSklNSVBOS0xGUEFFSUVIR0NDQUEuYmFzYXZhLmhhcmlzaEB3aXByby5jb20+AAADAAYQf1Vy ygMABxAJAAAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAB4ACBABAAAACgAAAFNVQlNDUklCRQAAAETG ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C29F9D.434C7040 Content-Type: text/plain; name="Wipro_Disclaimer.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Wipro_Disclaimer.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit **************************Disclaimer************************************ Information contained in this E-MAIL being proprietary to Wipro Limited is 'privileged' and 'confidential' and intended for use only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed. You are notified that any use, copying or dissemination of the information contained in the E-MAIL in any manner whatsoever is strictly prohibited. *************************************************************************** ------=_NextPart_000_0049_01C29F9D.434C7040-- From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 12 16:10:01 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA13009 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 16:10:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBCKv6e13942 for ietf-ldup-bks; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:57:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from dns.caledonia.net (dns.caledonia.net [207.40.197.238]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBCKv2E13935 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 12:57:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from D7ST2111 (pool-141-151-16-45.phil.east.verizon.net [141.151.16.45]) by dns.caledonia.net; Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:56:40 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Chris Apple" To: Subject: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 15:56:40 -0500 Organization: DSI-Consulting, Inc. Message-ID: <000201c2a220$f8ef4a00$0400a8c0@D7ST2111> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As mentioned in the proposed WG meeting minutes, there are currently two proposals on the table for concluding LDUP: 1) A proposal from the co-chairs. Summarized as follows: A) Publish LCUP spec as Proposed Standard after successful passage of a WG Last Call. B) Publish remaining WG documents as either Informational or Experimental after resolving gross inconsistencies and explicitly identifying areas where the WG was unable to achieve consensus in those documents. C) Reference X.500 BAC in the General Usage Profile as well as the X.500 Administrative Model (perhaps from the drafts by Steven L. and Kurt Z., perhaps directly from the X.500 Recommendations themselves) D) Reference X.500 BAC and Administrative Model in other WG documents as needed. E) Documents should enter WG Last Call on or before the July 2003 IETF Meeting. F) Conclude LDUP when last document is published as an RFC. 2) A proposal from Mark Wahl. Summarized as follows: A) Publish LCUP as a Proposed Standard after successful passage of WG Last Call. B) Conclude LDUP once LCUP spec is published as an RFC. C) Convert all WG documents to individual I-D contributions and allow editors to work out consensus (or not) outside of the context of a WG. I have spoke with a number of folks who have opinions about the pros and cons of either approach. Please post your views to the list on the pros and cons of these approaches and indicate which way you are leaning at this time. Also please feel free to post your observations about any inaccuracies in the summaries of the proposals above. Chris Apple - Principal Architect DSI Consulting, Inc. mailto:capple@dsi-consulting.net http://www.dsi-consulting.com From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 18 10:10:56 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10283 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:10:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBIF2Ih14270 for ietf-ldup-bks; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 07:02:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com (e3.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.103]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBIF2Fo14265 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 07:02:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from northrelay02.pok.ibm.com (northrelay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.150]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gBIF29jk061714; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:02:09 -0500 Received: from d27ml001.rchland.ibm.com (d27ml001.rchland.ibm.com [9.10.226.142]) by northrelay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.4) with ESMTP id gBIF27Fi051906; Wed, 18 Dec 2002 10:02:08 -0500 Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP To: Cc: ietf-ldup@imc.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002 Message-ID: From: John McMeeking Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:02:07 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on d27ml001/27/M/IBM(Release 6.0|September 26, 2002) at 12/18/2002 09:02:08 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: A) I agree with finishing work on LCUP as a proposed standard. B) With respect to the replication work, I agree that it seems highly unlikely that the working group will be able to reach consensus, and that even if published, that many directory server vendors would attempt to support it. I suspect too much work has been done on each vendor's replication implementations for them to invest in new replication support. Personally, I would hate to see the existing replication work lost. I would like to see it archived in some form along with a list of known issues. An experimental or informational RFC seems to be the way to do this within IETF, but I'd go for anything that preserved the work without too much pain. I am willing to contribute to such an effort, as long as it is a small, contained effort with enough participation to keep any individual contribution to a reasonable level. A July 2003 cutoff date for this work seems reasonable. If we can't do it by then, we're probably not going to get it done. With respect to this being done as a WG or as individual submisisons, I don't think it matters much. It is going to require a group effort (not necessarily WG) to wrap this up, and the individuals woud be drawn from the LDUP WG. The WG might even be able to acheive consensus on issues (we don't have to solve, just record it). I think it would be helpful (motivational) if the WG agreed that there was value in preserving the work. If the WG wants to pursue this, great. If not, and there's enough interest to do an "individual" submission, that's fine. Otherwise, its clearly time to drop the matter. C & D) I thought the access control discussion was largely due to replication issues. If we are not going to do replication as a proposed standard, is there any need to reference X.500 BAC and Administrative Model? E) I defer to the WG and the LCUP authors as to whether July 2003 is acheivable, F) Concur. LDUP WG should conclude when LCUP is completed. John McMeeking "Chris Apple" lting.net> cc: Sent by: Subject: Proposals for Concluding LDUP owner-ietf-ldup@m ail.imc.org 12/12/2002 02:56 PM Please respond to capple As mentioned in the proposed WG meeting minutes, there are currently two proposals on the table for concluding LDUP: 1) A proposal from the co-chairs. Summarized as follows: A) Publish LCUP spec as Proposed Standard after successful passage of a WG Last Call. B) Publish remaining WG documents as either Informational or Experimental after resolving gross inconsistencies and explicitly identifying areas where the WG was unable to achieve consensus in those documents. C) Reference X.500 BAC in the General Usage Profile as well as the X.500 Administrative Model (perhaps from the drafts by Steven L. and Kurt Z., perhaps directly from the X.500 Recommendations themselves) D) Reference X.500 BAC and Administrative Model in other WG documents as needed. E) Documents should enter WG Last Call on or before the July 2003 IETF Meeting. F) Conclude LDUP when last document is published as an RFC. 2) A proposal from Mark Wahl. Summarized as follows: A) Publish LCUP as a Proposed Standard after successful passage of WG Last Call. B) Conclude LDUP once LCUP spec is published as an RFC. C) Convert all WG documents to individual I-D contributions and allow editors to work out consensus (or not) outside of the context of a WG. I have spoke with a number of folks who have opinions about the pros and cons of either approach. Please post your views to the list on the pros and cons of these approaches and indicate which way you are leaning at this time. Also please feel free to post your observations about any inaccuracies in the summaries of the proposals above. Chris Apple - Principal Architect DSI Consulting, Inc. mailto:capple@dsi-consulting.net http://www.dsi-consulting.com From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 19 18:25:38 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00516 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:25:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBJNIuA21508 for ietf-ldup-bks; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:18:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from pretender.boolean.net (root@router.boolean.net [198.144.206.49]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBJNIto21504 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:18:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from nomad.OpenLDAP.org (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pretender.boolean.net (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gBJNIt0a020317; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 23:18:55 GMT (envelope-from Kurt@OpenLDAP.org) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20021212200254.027e6ab8@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: kurt@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:18:50 -0800 To: From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Cc: In-Reply-To: <000201c2a220$f8ef4a00$0400a8c0@D7ST2111> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: In my opinion that there is not energy left in the WG to complete LDUP on any track. Also, I feel there is little consumer interest in LDUP to justify further IETF work in this area. So, not only do I not support option 1), I do not support leaving any LDUP deliverables on our charter. Instead, I suggest that individuals pursue publication of the portions they feel are worthy (e.g., URP). While the WG can review this work, but I prefer the WG no longer be responsible for seeing such documents through. I also believe the WG should not attempt to review any LDAP Admin Model nor LDAP Access Control documents. Instead, it should refer any such request for review to the LDAPEXT list. With respect to LCUP, as I noted at IETF#55, we're not at the end of the LCUP engineering process but somewhere in the middle. We still got some significant issues to reach closure on. A WG may aide in seeing LCUP through. I am a bit concerned that the LCUP effort is seems also to struggling a bit, but I believe there is a reasonable level of interest (both within our community as well as our consumers) in LCUP. I think the key to this being successful as a WG effort is narrowing the WG's focus to LCUP standardization and having our chairs, with the help from the ADs, keep this effort on a very short leash. Hence, I support option 2 with a couple of caveats. I) LCUP be the only WG deliverable Ia) resolve major outstanding issues by IETF#56 Ib) progress documents by IETF#57 II) allow review of LDUP I-D produced by individuals (as long as these reviews does not slow LCUP progress) Kurt At 12:56 PM 12/12/2002, Chris Apple wrote: >As mentioned in the proposed WG meeting minutes, there >are currently two proposals on the table for concluding >LDUP: > >1) A proposal from the co-chairs. Summarized as follows: > >A) Publish LCUP spec as Proposed Standard after successful > passage of a WG Last Call. > >B) Publish remaining WG documents as either Informational > or Experimental after resolving gross inconsistencies and > explicitly identifying areas where the WG was unable to > achieve consensus in those documents. > >C) Reference X.500 BAC in the General Usage Profile as well > as the X.500 Administrative Model (perhaps from the drafts > by Steven L. and Kurt Z., perhaps directly from the X.500 > Recommendations themselves) > >D) Reference X.500 BAC and Administrative Model in other WG > documents as needed. > >E) Documents should enter WG Last Call on or before > the July 2003 IETF Meeting. > >F) Conclude LDUP when last document is published as an RFC. > >2) A proposal from Mark Wahl. Summarized as follows: > >A) Publish LCUP as a Proposed Standard after successful > passage of WG Last Call. > >B) Conclude LDUP once LCUP spec is published as an RFC. > >C) Convert all WG documents to individual I-D contributions > and allow editors to work out consensus (or not) outside > of the context of a WG. > >I have spoke with a number of folks who have opinions about >the pros and cons of either approach. > >Please post your views to the list on the pros and cons of >these approaches and indicate which way you are leaning at >this time. > >Also please feel free to post your observations about any >inaccuracies in the summaries of the proposals above. > >Chris Apple - Principal Architect > >DSI Consulting, Inc. > >mailto:capple@dsi-consulting.net > >http://www.dsi-consulting.com From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 19 18:41:54 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00817 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:41:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBJNXkC22314 for ietf-ldup-bks; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:33:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from netscape.com (c3po.aoltw.net [64.236.137.25]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBJNXeo22303 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:33:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from dredd.mcom.com (dredd.nscp.aoltw.net [10.169.8.48]) by netscape.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id gBJNXNt03641 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:33:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from netscape.com ([10.169.192.140]) by dredd.mcom.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id H7E43W00.EVE; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 15:33:32 -0800 Message-ID: <3E02567C.8080800@netscape.com> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 16:30:04 -0700 From: richm@netscape.com (Rich Megginson) Organization: Netscape - Enterprise Products User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" CC: capple@dsi-consulting.net, ietf-ldup@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021212200254.027e6ab8@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms030403000408010006040401" Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms030403000408010006040401 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010705070803020809050006" --------------010705070803020809050006 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: >In my opinion that there is not energy left in the WG to complete >LDUP on any track. Also, I feel there is little consumer interest >in LDUP to justify further IETF work in this area. So, not only >do I not support option 1), I do not support leaving any LDUP >deliverables on our charter. Instead, I suggest that individuals >pursue publication of the portions they feel are worthy (e.g., URP). >While the WG can review this work, but I prefer the WG no longer >be responsible for seeing such documents through. I also believe >the WG should not attempt to review any LDAP Admin Model nor >LDAP Access Control documents. Instead, it should refer any >such request for review to the LDAPEXT list. > >With respect to LCUP, as I noted at IETF#55, we're not at the end >of the LCUP engineering process but somewhere in the middle. We >still got some significant issues to reach closure on. > The other authors and I are currently reviewing what we hope to propose as LCUP draft version 04. I believe we have addressed the issues brought up during Last Call. >A WG may >aide in seeing LCUP through. I am a bit concerned that the LCUP >effort is seems also to struggling a bit, but I believe there is a >reasonable level of interest (both within our community as well >as our consumers) in LCUP. I think the key to this being successful >as a WG effort is narrowing the WG's focus to LCUP standardization >and having our chairs, with the help from the ADs, keep this >effort on a very short leash. > >Hence, I support option 2 with a couple of caveats. > I) LCUP be the only WG deliverable > Ia) resolve major outstanding issues by IETF#56 > Ib) progress documents by IETF#57 > II) allow review of LDUP I-D produced by individuals > (as long as these reviews does not slow LCUP progress) > >Kurt > >At 12:56 PM 12/12/2002, Chris Apple wrote: > > >>As mentioned in the proposed WG meeting minutes, there >>are currently two proposals on the table for concluding >>LDUP: >> >>1) A proposal from the co-chairs. Summarized as follows: >> >>A) Publish LCUP spec as Proposed Standard after successful >> passage of a WG Last Call. >> >>B) Publish remaining WG documents as either Informational >> or Experimental after resolving gross inconsistencies and >> explicitly identifying areas where the WG was unable to >> achieve consensus in those documents. >> >>C) Reference X.500 BAC in the General Usage Profile as well >> as the X.500 Administrative Model (perhaps from the drafts >> by Steven L. and Kurt Z., perhaps directly from the X.500 >> Recommendations themselves) >> >>D) Reference X.500 BAC and Administrative Model in other WG >> documents as needed. >> >>E) Documents should enter WG Last Call on or before >> the July 2003 IETF Meeting. >> >>F) Conclude LDUP when last document is published as an RFC. >> >>2) A proposal from Mark Wahl. Summarized as follows: >> >>A) Publish LCUP as a Proposed Standard after successful >> passage of WG Last Call. >> >>B) Conclude LDUP once LCUP spec is published as an RFC. >> >>C) Convert all WG documents to individual I-D contributions >> and allow editors to work out consensus (or not) outside >> of the context of a WG. >> >>I have spoke with a number of folks who have opinions about >>the pros and cons of either approach. >> >>Please post your views to the list on the pros and cons of >>these approaches and indicate which way you are leaning at >>this time. >> >>Also please feel free to post your observations about any >>inaccuracies in the summaries of the proposals above. >> >>Chris Apple - Principal Architect >> >>DSI Consulting, Inc. >> >>mailto:capple@dsi-consulting.net >> >>http://www.dsi-consulting.com >> >> > > > --------------010705070803020809050006 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
In my opinion that there is not energy left in the WG to complete
LDUP on any track.  Also, I feel there is little consumer interest
in LDUP to justify further IETF work in this area.  So, not only
do I not support option 1), I do not support leaving any LDUP
deliverables on our charter.  Instead, I suggest that individuals
pursue publication of the portions they feel are worthy (e.g., URP).
While the WG can review this work, but I prefer the WG no longer
be responsible for seeing such documents through.  I also believe
the WG should not attempt to review any LDAP Admin Model nor
LDAP Access Control documents.  Instead, it should refer any
such request for review to the LDAPEXT list.

With respect to LCUP, as I noted at IETF#55, we're not at the end
of the LCUP engineering process but somewhere in the middle.  We
still got some significant issues to reach closure on.
The other authors and I are currently reviewing what we hope to propose as LCUP draft version 04.  I believe we have addressed the issues brought up during Last Call.
A WG may
aide in seeing LCUP through.  I am a bit concerned that the LCUP
effort is seems also to struggling a bit, but I believe there is a
reasonable level of interest (both within our community as well
as our consumers) in LCUP.  I think the key to this being successful
as a WG effort is narrowing the WG's focus to LCUP standardization
and having our chairs, with the help from the ADs, keep this
effort on a very short leash.

Hence, I support option 2 with a couple of caveats.
  I) LCUP be the only WG deliverable
    Ia) resolve major outstanding issues by IETF#56
    Ib) progress documents by IETF#57
  II) allow review of LDUP I-D produced by individuals
     (as long as these reviews does not slow LCUP progress)

Kurt

At 12:56 PM 12/12/2002, Chris Apple wrote:
  
As mentioned in the proposed WG meeting minutes, there
are currently two proposals on the table for concluding
LDUP:

1) A proposal from the co-chairs. Summarized as follows:

A) Publish LCUP spec as Proposed Standard after successful
  passage of a WG Last Call.

B) Publish remaining WG documents as either Informational
  or Experimental after resolving gross inconsistencies and
  explicitly identifying areas where the WG was unable to
  achieve consensus in those documents.

C) Reference X.500 BAC in the General Usage Profile as well
  as the X.500 Administrative Model (perhaps from the drafts
  by Steven L. and Kurt Z., perhaps directly from the X.500
  Recommendations themselves)

D) Reference X.500 BAC and Administrative Model in other WG
  documents as needed.

E) Documents should enter WG Last Call on or before
  the July 2003 IETF Meeting.

F) Conclude LDUP when last document is published as an RFC.

2) A proposal from Mark Wahl. Summarized as follows:

A) Publish LCUP as a Proposed Standard after successful
  passage of WG Last Call.

B) Conclude LDUP once LCUP spec is published as an RFC.

C) Convert all WG documents to individual I-D contributions
  and allow editors to work out consensus (or not) outside
  of the context of a WG.

I have spoke with a number of folks who have opinions about
the pros and cons of either approach.

Please post your views to the list on the pros and cons of
these approaches and indicate which way you are leaning at
this time.

Also please feel free to post your observations about any
inaccuracies in the summaries of the proposals above.

Chris Apple - Principal Architect

DSI Consulting, Inc.

mailto:capple@dsi-consulting.net

http://www.dsi-consulting.com

--------------010705070803020809050006-- --------------ms030403000408010006040401 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIK6TCC A4MwggLsoAMCAQICAmXjMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UE CBMCQ0ExFjAUBgNVBAcTDU1vdW50YWluIFZpZXcxGzAZBgNVBAoTEkFtZXJpY2EgT25saW5l IEluYzEZMBcGA1UECxMQQU9MIFRlY2hub2xvZ2llczEnMCUGA1UEAxMeSW50cmFuZXQgQ2Vy dGlmaWNhdGUgQXV0aG9yaXR5MB4XDTAyMTEyNjE4MTQwOFoXDTAzMDUyNTE4MTQwOFowfTEL MAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxGzAZBgNVBAoTEkFtZXJpY2EgT25saW5lIEluYzEVMBMGCgmSJomT8ixk AQETBXJpY2htMSEwHwYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhJyaWNobUBuZXRzY2FwZS5jb20xFzAVBgNVBAMT DlJpY2ggTWVnZ2luc29uMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCjtycvO35sPdLF Stqay5K2LMKyD7e51X7uhDLV+/3Hlg76kaZ54H/KBj32h7PCn3+QZZFOLdHN3aEBFm+xepBb 0XQ69ikarFc5z5ize/BgTJlNbo8go0PUPlHM40Q+Lwiq8psjaGZST7G+gE9NeObvJ4AGg3+l xnFOXzz331HNuQIDAQABo4H6MIH3MA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIFIDAdBgNVHSUEFjAUBggrBgEF BQcDAgYIKwYBBQUHAwQwQwYJYIZIAYb4QgENBDYWNElzc3VlZCBieSBOZXRzY2FwZSBDZXJ0 aWZpY2F0ZSBNYW5hZ2VtZW50IFN5c3RlbSA0LjUwHQYDVR0RBBYwFIEScmljaG1AbmV0c2Nh cGUuY29tMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFCnbsi2Dfn+LI7vCzGa5Oegp8wKGMEEGCCsGAQUFBwEBBDUw MzAxBggrBgEFBQcwAYYlaHR0cDovL2NlcnRpZmljYXRlcy5uZXRzY2FwZS5jb20vb2NzcDAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOBgQCwXDFoep/l+//YCFgo2LSyTsPmP1cjsqCZ7gVG1HAequjZm0KK zBI55bWiEaK9Vd7InSHZdF/hj8ACZsfrWA8y1xSo8AuKBVkTp1Hh76zmQQitAGP1DxN85Sgm 86kBzcZbqMNW5aNkW5K4Izpb+6N0EhwGx6Uv5AXlEGtUkQroijCCA4QwggLtoAMCAQICAmXk MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCQ0ExFjAUBgNVBAcT DU1vdW50YWluIFZpZXcxGzAZBgNVBAoTEkFtZXJpY2EgT25saW5lIEluYzEZMBcGA1UECxMQ QU9MIFRlY2hub2xvZ2llczEnMCUGA1UEAxMeSW50cmFuZXQgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgQXV0aG9y aXR5MB4XDTAyMTEyNjE4MTQwOFoXDTAzMDUyNTE4MTQwOFowfTELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxGzAZ BgNVBAoTEkFtZXJpY2EgT25saW5lIEluYzEVMBMGCgmSJomT8ixkAQETBXJpY2htMSEwHwYJ KoZIhvcNAQkBFhJyaWNobUBuZXRzY2FwZS5jb20xFzAVBgNVBAMTDlJpY2ggTWVnZ2luc29u MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDFUh7DaFJ6LKg4po0qdNFKLPsbudM37rcQ AUU3YnD02FBbiRm1Jk/0duPoenqDZ/TZ9wexCkeK79DH4cw8VZhPqGoXFSsXv3OhTfgKNir6 VEVLJsHVhkm6bbiVOIn/nuYcC7brb/+wUiL0fJB07kFzuflsgek+0pJ2tcvXcwmiOQIDAQAB o4H7MIH4MA8GA1UdDwEB/wQFAwMHgAAwHQYDVR0lBBYwFAYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwME MEMGCWCGSAGG+EIBDQQ2FjRJc3N1ZWQgYnkgTmV0c2NhcGUgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgTWFuYWdl bWVudCBTeXN0ZW0gNC41MB0GA1UdEQQWMBSBEnJpY2htQG5ldHNjYXBlLmNvbTAfBgNVHSME GDAWgBQp27Itg35/iyO7wsxmuTnoKfMChjBBBggrBgEFBQcBAQQ1MDMwMQYIKwYBBQUHMAGG JWh0dHA6Ly9jZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZXMubmV0c2NhcGUuY29tL29jc3AwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAD gYEAqAyCrRh04NLX4Away7B39CLi0RcCBk+2vQHhXjfDe8+rK0dBOJI712YZNpyodrVnVmjN 5prJVyq/j+nTT8HWst7hp4aSHebefoSGzz6ZhAxzpgzOuSvchYytj1PE39pSaVMp1X7za/Ki FpmEXDSQqND5mLjVpSUCA1LA9X2wmgswggPWMIIDP6ADAgECAgQCAAHmMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEB BQUAMEUxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRgwFgYDVQQKEw9HVEUgQ29ycG9yYXRpb24xHDAaBgNVBAMT E0dURSBDeWJlclRydXN0IFJvb3QwHhcNMDEwNjAxMTI0NzAwWhcNMDQwNjAxMjM1OTAwWjCB kzELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxCzAJBgNVBAgTAkNBMRYwFAYDVQQHEw1Nb3VudGFpbiBWaWV3MRsw GQYDVQQKExJBbWVyaWNhIE9ubGluZSBJbmMxGTAXBgNVBAsTEEFPTCBUZWNobm9sb2dpZXMx JzAlBgNVBAMTHkludHJhbmV0IENlcnRpZmljYXRlIEF1dGhvcml0eTCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEA4u9fLHZDiUsaX7Pl+Kpviy+BTWf/vUoPYy7E3IX2nixJJiD/ABfk iIhp3v2DV+CjERkRqtbcvO+z0hUuVMZufL/ZucNG0wkFhOVTXEjthIWaDjs9Fgdc8LN5q5oQ pbzBpNF4TAblZEH8BSVjJuvvDMduVKGMzlRXth+S2rISS40CAwEAAaOCAYIwggF+ME0GA1Ud HwRGMEQwQqBAoD6GPGh0dHA6Ly93d3cxLnVzLWhvc3RpbmcuYmFsdGltb3JlLmNvbS9jZ2kt YmluL0NSTC9HVEVSb290LmNnaTAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUKduyLYN+f4sju8LMZrk56CnzAoYwZgYD VR0gBF8wXTBGBgoqhkiG+GMBAgEFMDgwNgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWKmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYmFsdGlt b3JlLmNvbS9DUFMvT21uaVJvb3QuaHRtbDATBgMqAwQwDDAKBggrBgEFBQcCATBYBgNVHSME UTBPoUmkRzBFMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEYMBYGA1UEChMPR1RFIENvcnBvcmF0aW9uMRwwGgYD VQQDExNHVEUgQ3liZXJUcnVzdCBSb290ggIBozArBgNVHRAEJDAigA8yMDAxMDYwMTEyNDcz MFqBDzIwMDMwOTAxMjM1OTAwWjAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCAQYwDwYDVR0TBAgwBgEB/wIBATAN BgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFAAOBgQBKYg7Z+kZ3BApsDd3+0iI5mRAKrogthj1XhOYSJDdp+1le4hGw +Z+kV4aKaR8GY9F97jM2SRAgDx+XFywnbD1sOQR74kXohxtUtmBBbR2uBfOd+To0muN7a0xx +OuoK4OwNZBMGWhx7fBjIl7CW+wgerWwUXPpB+6BZ3Z5U/eV1DGCAqYwggKiAgEBMIGaMIGT MQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzELMAkGA1UECBMCQ0ExFjAUBgNVBAcTDU1vdW50YWluIFZpZXcxGzAZ BgNVBAoTEkFtZXJpY2EgT25saW5lIEluYzEZMBcGA1UECxMQQU9MIFRlY2hub2xvZ2llczEn MCUGA1UEAxMeSW50cmFuZXQgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgQXV0aG9yaXR5AgJl5DAJBgUrDgMCGgUA oIIBYTAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0wMjEyMTky MzMwMDRaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBQKAJgt3r4Ma4+E452/FRjk+qtQizBSBgkqhkiG9w0B CQ8xRTBDMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUr DgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDCBrQYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxgZ2ggZowgZMxCzAJBgNVBAYT AlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJDQTEWMBQGA1UEBxMNTW91bnRhaW4gVmlldzEbMBkGA1UEChMSQW1l cmljYSBPbmxpbmUgSW5jMRkwFwYDVQQLExBBT0wgVGVjaG5vbG9naWVzMScwJQYDVQQDEx5J bnRyYW5ldCBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0ZSBBdXRob3JpdHkCAmXjMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIGAjnlM /ts6Twcb2i/M0zYpLG0VBQsz//Hg277WmpqiAZ0TLHaTLcY8cUcyG2MHJPZ3I6UMPlYm476d vHunWoSFWe6gdD45tJNo/lG+/eTHiOWGWl6Kpip9XZeaYLsvug0Vwh1dE+gQnWwFgNSbWa5e ZC4pOhhTs3tiFe+c7szIQ98AAAAAAAA= --------------ms030403000408010006040401-- From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 19 20:40:37 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA03118 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 20:40:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBK1bGP01580 for ietf-ldup-bks; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:37:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from netscape.com (r2d2.aoltw.net [64.236.137.26]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBK1bEo01574 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:37:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from judge.mcom.com (judge.nscp.aoltw.net [10.169.8.47]) by netscape.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id gBK1bC517567 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:37:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from netscape.com ([10.169.192.79]) by judge.mcom.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id H7E9U001.FZ9; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:37:12 -0800 Message-ID: <3E027445.7080006@netscape.com> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 20:37:09 -0500 From: mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith) Organization: Netscape Communications Corp. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020827 X-Accept-Language: English/United States [en-US],E MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" CC: capple@dsi-consulting.net, ietf-ldup@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021212200254.027e6ab8@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: > > With respect to LCUP, as I noted at IETF#55, we're not at the end > of the LCUP engineering process but somewhere in the middle. I think the middle is a large area but we are closer to the end of the middle than the beginning of the middle ;-) > We still got some significant issues to reach closure on. A WG may > aide in seeing LCUP through. I am a bit concerned that the LCUP > effort is seems also to struggling a bit, but I believe there is a > reasonable level of interest (both within our community as well > as our consumers) in LCUP. I think the key to this being successful > as a WG effort is narrowing the WG's focus to LCUP standardization > and having our chairs, with the help from the ADs, keep this > effort on a very short leash. > > Hence, I support option 2 with a couple of caveats. > I) LCUP be the only WG deliverable > Ia) resolve major outstanding issues by IETF#56 > Ib) progress documents by IETF#57 > II) allow review of LDUP I-D produced by individuals > (as long as these reviews does not slow LCUP progress) I don't think the LCUP effort is "struggling" much if at all, but I agree that it will be helpful to keep LDUP alive long enough to complete the LCUP work. -Mark Smith Netscape From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 19 21:14:54 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03840 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 21:14:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBK2B9402623 for ietf-ldup-bks; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:11:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from pretender.boolean.net (root@router.boolean.net [198.144.206.49]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBK2B7o02618 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:11:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from nomad.OpenLDAP.org (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pretender.boolean.net (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gBK2B00a021277; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 02:11:00 GMT (envelope-from Kurt@OpenLDAP.org) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20021219174907.019ff248@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: kurt@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 18:10:40 -0800 To: mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith) From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Cc: capple@dsi-consulting.net, ietf-ldup@imc.org In-Reply-To: <3E027445.7080006@netscape.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021212200254.027e6ab8@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: At 05:37 PM 12/19/2002, Mark C Smith wrote: >I don't think the LCUP effort is "struggling" much if at all While I am convinced that the authors are reasonable committed to completing LCUP in a timely manner, I've had concerns that the rest of the WG (including myself) really isn't engaged in the engineering of LCUP. Specifically, I am afraid that a charter that allows significant distraction (LDUP, Admin Models, ACMs) from the LCUP standardization effort will lead us nowhere. Kurt From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Sun Dec 22 09:57:45 2002 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02346 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2002 09:57:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id gBMEpvk03967 for ietf-ldup-bks; Sun, 22 Dec 2002 06:51:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from dns.caledonia.net (dns.caledonia.net [207.40.197.238]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBMEpto03963 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2002 06:51:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from D7ST2111 (pool-141-151-13-28.phil.east.verizon.net [141.151.13.28]) by dns.caledonia.net; Sun, 22 Dec 2002 07:51:03 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Chris Apple" To: Subject: RE: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 09:51:13 -0500 Organization: DSI-Consulting, Inc. Message-ID: <000701c2a9c9$93aa3000$0300a8c0@D7ST2111> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000201c2a220$f8ef4a00$0400a8c0@D7ST2111> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks to those who have posted comments so far on this topic. In the interest of moving forward and recognizing that this is a time of year when many of us are spending more time with family and friends than reading IETF mailing lists, lets keep the commenting window on this thread open until January 15, 2003. If you've not done so already, please post your reactions, comments, etc. on this topic to the list by that date. Then John and I will try to make some judgment call on consensus. I make this second request for comments because I know from speaking with several folks at the last IETF that there are perspectives which have not been expressed on the list so far. One thing that seems fairly clear at this point in time though, is that the work towards standardizing LCUP has sufficient momentum and value to keep it going regardless of how the concluding LDUP thread is resolved. Chris Apple - Principal Architect DSI Consulting, Inc. mailto:capple@dsi-consulting.net http://www.dsi-consulting.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Chris Apple Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:57 PM To: ietf-ldup@imc.org Subject: Proposals for Concluding LDUP As mentioned in the proposed WG meeting minutes, there are currently two proposals on the table for concluding LDUP: 1) A proposal from the co-chairs. Summarized as follows: A) Publish LCUP spec as Proposed Standard after successful passage of a WG Last Call. B) Publish remaining WG documents as either Informational or Experimental after resolving gross inconsistencies and explicitly identifying areas where the WG was unable to achieve consensus in those documents. C) Reference X.500 BAC in the General Usage Profile as well as the X.500 Administrative Model (perhaps from the drafts by Steven L. and Kurt Z., perhaps directly from the X.500 Recommendations themselves) D) Reference X.500 BAC and Administrative Model in other WG documents as needed. E) Documents should enter WG Last Call on or before the July 2003 IETF Meeting. F) Conclude LDUP when last document is published as an RFC. 2) A proposal from Mark Wahl. Summarized as follows: A) Publish LCUP as a Proposed Standard after successful passage of WG Last Call. B) Conclude LDUP once LCUP spec is published as an RFC. C) Convert all WG documents to individual I-D contributions and allow editors to work out consensus (or not) outside of the context of a WG. I have spoke with a number of folks who have opinions about the pros and cons of either approach. Please post your views to the list on the pros and cons of these approaches and indicate which way you are leaning at this time. Also please feel free to post your observations about any inaccuracies in the summaries of the proposals above. Chris Apple - Principal Architect DSI Consulting, Inc. mailto:capple@dsi-consulting.net http://www.dsi-consulting.com