Re: RE: moving access control discussion to LDUP

Chris et al;
    I have been silent on this list for some time but since silence
currently counts as acceptance (as it always has) I need to express my
concurrence with Kurt that ACM should not be added to the LDUP charter.
While I follow and understand what the lack of ACM might mean for LDUP cross
vendor implementations I believe it is too much for the WG at this time (and
since LDAPEXT couldn't come to consensus I have doubts whether this WG could
even on a meaningful subset for LDUP).  So add one more voice against adding
ACM to the charter.
        Ed Owens


Edward Owens
Principal Consultant
Noetic Solutions LLC
(925)366-1005
[email protected]
http://www.noetic.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Apple" <[email protected]>
To: "Ietf-Ldup@Imc. Org" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 12:26 PM
Subject: RE: 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.
>
> Chris Apple> I believe you have posted some
> suggestions/observations about what the WG might have
> to consider related to this in the posting to which John
> replied. I'll respond separately to the original posting.
> I do believe there is merit in some of what you propose.
> Whether this additional security-related work needs to be included
> in separate documents or folded into a revision of the ACM
> document (if and when it becomes an LDUP deliverable) is something
> we should definitely discuss on the list.
>
> IMO, the WG as bitten off more that it can chew and bitting off
> more will only cause the WG to choke.
>
> Chris Apple> Opinion noted. It will be considered along with the
> rest of the opinions on this matter and WG consensus will be judged
> based on the collective hum of the responses.
>
> So, I wonder, what is beyond scope of this working group?
>
> Kurt
>
> Chris Apple> That flavor of comment adds no value to
> the list, the WG, the charter, or any deliverable we are
> charged with producing. Our ADs will tell the WG if it is
> stepping out of bounds, so to speak, with respect to adopting
> the ACM work and perhaps adding other deliverables as you
> suggested in the posting to which John Strassner replied
> with his question. I have heard your objections to adopting
> the ACM work as has John. They will be taken into consideration
> when John and I discuss consensus around the new charter.
> Keep in mind that discussion between Patrik, John, and I has taken
> place about the scoping issue related to the ACM work - and that
> Patrik, at that time, indicated that he had no objection to it being added
> provided that LDAPEXT was truly going to shut down prior to achieving
> consensus on it.
>
> Unless a substantial number of other WG members express
> concerns similar to yours, John and I will be required as co-chairs to
> report to the list that consensus goes against the opinion you have
> expressed.
>
> Enough mashed potatoes; its time for some meat:
>
> The WG should not attempt to actively work on technical
> specifications that are not a part of the official version of
> it. The current version of the charter indicates that in December 2001,
> we will re-evaluate the charter. I am simply starting the process now
> so that we can clearly understand and get to work on deliverables
> tied to a revised charter *in* December rather than starting the process
> then. This means that we are clearly, at this time, within the bounds of
> what our charter allows us to do. I do not believe, in this case, that
> starting on a deliverable earlier than scheduled is a bad thing.
>
> Keep in mind the following:
>
> 1) the charter is currently being revised
> 2) discussion related to the proposed charter took place on the list
> 3) a number of clarifications and suggestions were received
> both publicly and privately
> 4) I'm revising the document now and will report it to the WG mailing
> list for confirmation that I captured everything that made sense to
include
>
> Given that we did not know at the time the charter revision was proposed
> to the list discussion of the timing with which the LDAPEXT WG intends to
> close (before ACM is complete/published as an RFC), we added text
> to the charter (to which no objections were raised that I'm aware of)
> allowing
> the WG to consider whether or not the ACM work should be added to
> the charter.
>
> So, speaking as the co-chair currently responsible for revising
> the charter proposal, I have decided to extend the original plan
> for revising the charter proposal now instead of later, largely
> because it is now known that LDAPEXT will not be pursuing
> the progression of the ACM document.
>
> Chris Apple
>
> Currently self-employed pondering the meaning of life in Olde City,
> Philadelphia, PA, US, Earth
>
>
>