RE: Correction to Last Call posting

   >-----Original Message-----
   >From: Richard Huber [mailto:[email protected]]
   >Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 5:22 PM
   >To: Christopher Apple
   >Cc: 'Kurt D. Zeilenga'; [email protected]; 
   >[email protected]
   >Subject: Re: Correction to Last Call posting
   >
   >
   >We basically agree with the three proposed changes, but we 
   >did make some
   >edits.  For the first change (to the last paragraph of 
   >Section 3), we
   >propose this wording:
   >
   >"Interoperability among directories using LDAP replication 
   >may be limited
   >for implementations that add semantics beyond those 
   >specified by the LDAP
   >core documents (RFC 2251-2256, 2829, 2830). In addition, the "core"
   >specifications include numerous features which are not
   >mandatory-to-implement (e.g. RECOMMENDED or OPTIONAL).  
   >There are also
   >numerous elective extensions.  Thus LDAP replication 
   >interoperability
   >between independent implementations of LDAP which support 
   >different options
   >may be limited.  Use of applicability statements to improve 
   >interoperability
   >in particular application spaces is RECOMMENDED."
   >
   >We agree with Kurt's comment, but we also want to retain 
   >the point of the
   >original version of the paragraph, which we feel is still valid.
   >
   >For requirement M5, we propose:
   >
   >"M5.  LDAP replication MUST NOT require that all copies of 
   >the replicated
   >information be complete, but MAY require that at least one copy be
   >complete.  The model MUST support Partial Replicas."
   >
   >We agree with Kurt's point and we think this wording captures it.
   >
   >For Section 5 (Security Considerations) we propose:
   >
   >"This document includes security requirements (listed in 
   >section 4.8 above)
   >for the replication model and protocol.  As noted in Section 3,
   >interoperability may be impacted when replicating among servers that
   >implement non-standard extensions to basic LDAP semantics.  
   >Since LDAPv3
   >access control is a set of standards-based extensions, 
   >security-related and
   >even general LDAP interoperability will be significantly 
   >impacted by the
   >degree of consistency with which LDAP implementations 
   >support the access
   >control model [ACModel]."
   >
   >[ACModel] is the current Access Control Model draft
   >(draft-ietf-ldapext-acl-model-08.txt); it will be added to 
   >the references.
   >
   >If these changes are acceptable to the list, we will 
   >resubmit the draft.
   >Since these are relatively minor changes resulting from WG 
   >last call, we
   >assume the new draft would go to the IESG.

Count on it.

   >
   >Rick Huber (for the editors)

Chris Apple
Program Manager - Directory Services
United Messaging Inc.
<http://www.unitedmessaging.com>
<mailto:[email protected]> 
(V) 610-425-2860

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Apple;Chris
FN:Chris Apple (E-mail)
ORG:UMI
TITLE:Program Manager
TEL;WORK;VOICE:(610) 425-2860
TEL;HOME;VOICE:(215) 873-0850
TEL;CELL;VOICE:(610) 585-4241
TEL;WORK;FAX:(610) 425-6501
ADR;WORK:;;1161 McDermott Drive;West Chester;Pa.;19380;United States of America
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:1161 McDermott Drive=0D=0AWest Chester, Pa. 19380=0D=0AUnited States of Amer=
ica
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[email protected]
REV:20010621T205341Z
END:VCARD