FW: moving access control discussion to LDUP

It could interop assuming that all data was public read-write, or public
read on all but one of the servers, with that one controlling who could
update (i.e., master-slave).

Taking this approach would let you factor the problems -- you could
focus on the replication issues, and when some future WG came up with a
common access control syntax and semantics, then it would just plug in.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Strassner [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:06 PM
> To: Kurt D. Zeilenga; Christopher Apple
> Cc: 'Rob Byrne - Sun Microsystems'; Mark Wahl; 
> [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: moving access control discussion to LDUP
> 
> 
> So how will the protocol be able to interoperate without a common ACM?
> 
> thanks,
> John
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:53 PM
> To: Christopher Apple
> Cc: 'Rob Byrne - Sun Microsystems'; Mark Wahl;
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: moving access control discussion to LDUP
> 
> 
> Please note that I feel the LDUP WG should not undertake
> the LDAP ACM work or any other new work.  The LDUP WG
> needs to narrow its focus and trim its workload if it
> is ever to successfully conclude.
> 
> And also I ask that the charter be clarified as to the
> extent of work this WG is undertaking (or intends to
> undertake).  In particular, the charter should state whether 
> or not the group intends to:
> 	1) Update LDAPv3 "core" specification (including
> 	   its normative references),
> 	2) Define an ACM for LDAPv3, and/or
> 	3) Define an authentication identity to
> 	   authorization identity mapping scheme.
> 
> (Note that the mapping scheme is needed for an ACM
> to provide any reasonable level of consistent access
> to client entities in a replicated environment.)
> 
> Kurt
> 
>