RE: moving access control discussion to LDUP

When it comes to interoprability, I think that AC has higher priority than
Replication because
most companies who implement directory replication may end up using the
same vendor product.

I would like to see AC work to be continued.
It seems that completing development of replication requires AC. Sounds
that it is natural for LDUP to take over.
I vote for moving it to LDUP.

-Christine Yoon
PricewaterhouseCoopers






"Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email protected]>@mail.imc.org on 11/14/2001 06:14:30
PM

Sent by:  [email protected]

To:   [email protected]
cc:   Christopher Apple <[email protected]>, 'Rob Byrne
      - Sun Microsystems' <[email protected]>, Mark Wahl
      <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected]
Subject:  RE: moving access control discussion to LDUP



At 02:05 PM 2001-11-14, John Strassner wrote:
>So how will the protocol be able to interoperate without a common ACM?

At the level of interoperability this WG is attempting to achieve,
it cannot.  But then, this WG will needs much more than a common
ACM to provide the level of interoperability it is attempting to
achieve.

IMO, the WG as bitten off more that it can chew and bitting off
more will only cause the WG to choke.

So, I wonder, what is beyond scope of this working group?

Kurt



----------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.