RE: Revised WG Charter Proposal

Since there is nothing explicitly in the charter
about this, I suppose it would be logical to say
that it is not explicitly prohibited.

With that said, I'm sure that there would be significant
and quite heated debate on the topic if there was a document
which did propose that the model you are referring to
be altered in a way that is not somehow compatible with
the currently published RFC.

There would have to be consensus that such a thing is
a good idea.

I am uncertain as to what specifically has led you to
raise the issue though. Please elaborate on your concerns.

Chris Apple
Program Manager - Integration Services
United Messaging Inc.
<http://www.unitedmessaging.com>
<mailto:[email protected]> 
(V) +1 610 425 2860


-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 11:36 PM
To: Christopher Apple
Cc: '[email protected]'; John Strassner (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Revised WG Charter Proposal


At 07:41 PM 2001-11-07, Christopher Apple wrote:
>This text to me sounds like its attempting to
>write in liaison activities between the IETF
>LDUP WG and the ITU.

No.

I am attempting to add text to the charter which
clarifies whether or not redefining the "X.500
data model as used by LDAP" [RFC2251, Section 3.2
& 3.3] is within scope or not of this working group.

As chair, what is your opinion?
Can this WG (under its present charter or the proposed
charter) redefine the "X.500 data model as used
by LDAP" or not?

Kurt

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Apple;Christopher
FN:Christopher 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:20010925T181636Z
END:VCARD