Re: [ldapext] IETF#73 LDAP BOF Proposal

------=_Part_27512_31960634.1220107626097
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Kurt,
Can you be more specific about which documents you have in mind for both
groups of documents you proposed to work on?
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Kurt Zeilenga <[email protected]>wrote:

> I intend to send a BOF proposal for IETF#73 for the purpose of forming
> a new working group to undertake LDAP standards work.  Below is a
> rough proposal for your consideration and comments.  (I am surely
> biased as what new engineering efforts the proposed WG ought take on,
> please do feel free to offer other possible work items.)
>
> -- Kurt
>
>
> Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) BOF
>
> Chair(s): TBD
>
> The purpose of this BOF is to discuss the formation of a working group
> to undertake LDAP standards work.  It is conceived that the proposed
> WG would undertake both the revision of existing technical
> specifications for LDAP extensions and the engineering of new LDAP
> extensions.
>
> There are numerous existing technical specifications for LDAP
> extensions.  Most of the Standard Track specifications were published
> prior to the current LDAP "core" specification [RFC 4510] and are in
> the need of revision.  In some cases, it may be more appropriate to
> move the extension off the Standards Track.   While the work of
> determining which RFC should be revised (or moved off to a different
> track), and prioritization of the work, could be deferred to the WG,
> it is hoped that the BOF will reach some conclusions as to which
> revision work is of the highest priority.
>
> There are also numerous extensions to LDAP which seem worthy of
> standardization. It is hoped that the BOF will reach some conclusion
> as to short list of new extension work items to be undertaken (at
> least initially) by the proposed WG.  That short list might include,
> for instance, in LDAP Transactions and Extensions for X.500 Alignment.
>
> By including both revision and new engineering work items in a single
> working group it is hoped that the sufficient participation levels
> will be maintained to make reasonable progress in both revision and
> new engineering work.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ldapext mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext
>

------=_Part_27512_31960634.1220107626097
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<div dir="ltr"><div>Kurt,</div>
<div>Can you be more specific about which documents you have in mind for both groups of documents you proposed to work on?<br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Kurt Zeilenga <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I intend to send a BOF proposal for IETF#73 for the purpose of forming<br>a new working group to undertake LDAP standards work. &nbsp;Below is a<br>
rough proposal for your consideration and comments. &nbsp;(I am surely<br>biased as what new engineering efforts the proposed WG ought take on,<br>please do feel free to offer other possible work items.)<br><br>-- Kurt<br><br>
<br>Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) BOF<br><br>Chair(s): TBD<br><br>The purpose of this BOF is to discuss the formation of a working group<br>to undertake LDAP standards work. &nbsp;It is conceived that the proposed<br>
WG would undertake both the revision of existing technical<br>specifications for LDAP extensions and the engineering of new LDAP<br>extensions.<br><br>There are numerous existing technical specifications for LDAP<br>extensions. &nbsp;Most of the Standard Track specifications were published<br>
prior to the current LDAP &quot;core&quot; specification [RFC 4510] and are in<br>the need of revision. &nbsp;In some cases, it may be more appropriate to<br>move the extension off the Standards Track. &nbsp; While the work of<br>determining which RFC should be revised (or moved off to a different<br>
track), and prioritization of the work, could be deferred to the WG,<br>it is hoped that the BOF will reach some conclusions as to which<br>revision work is of the highest priority.<br><br>There are also numerous extensions to LDAP which seem worthy of<br>
standardization. It is hoped that the BOF will reach some conclusion<br>as to short list of new extension work items to be undertaken (at<br>least initially) by the proposed WG. &nbsp;That short list might include,<br>for instance, in LDAP Transactions and Extensions for X.500 Alignment.<br>
<br>By including both revision and new engineering work items in a single<br>working group it is hoped that the sufficient participation levels<br>will be maintained to make reasonable progress in both revision and<br>new engineering work.<br>
<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Ldapext mailing list<br><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a><br><a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

------=_Part_27512_31960634.1220107626097--