Re: IETF#73 LDAP BOF Proposal

I would be interested in participating.

Thanks,
Peter


Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
> I've submitted a BOF proposal to Apps ADs for their consideration.  
> Amongst other factors in determining whether to approve this BOF, they 
> will need to be convinced that there is sufficient level of 
> participation in the BOF and the proposed WG.   It would be helpful 
> for those interested to express their interest, either on list or in 
> person to Alexey (who has agreed to chair the BOF), and/or myself, 
> within the next week or so.
>
> Regards, Kurt
>
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>