Adding to the LDAP ACM to a WG charter

This message is intended to clarify the reasons why I
oppose having LDAP ACM work item on any IETF WG charter
at this time.

Many (most?) of us (including I) would like very much
to see LDAP have a Standard Track powerful, flexible,
and extensible standard track access control model. 
Many of us have tried very hard to produce such.  But
after years of trying, it became clear that the IETF
was not going to reach consensus on a number of critical
issues.  The issues are the same, the people are (mostly)
the same, a change of venue (LDAPext->LDUP) won't help.

But a change to which process used may help.  Those who
support an LDAPext-ACM based solution should, as individuals,
produce the best damn LDAP ACM specification they can and
those who support alternative approaches should, as
individuals, produce the best damn specification they can.
We should give each set of individuals a reasonable amount
of time to produces these specifications.   Then, based upon
what is produced by the sets of individuals, determine how
best to proceed:
	a) adopt one (publish on Standard Track)
	b) adopt none
	c) create a WG to take one approach to Standard Track

Based upon discussions I had at IETF#51 and with individuals
since then, I believe we will soon multiple pretty damn good
alternatives submitted (post IETF#52).

IMO, we'll have an LDAP ACM must sooner than later if LDUP
stays out of way.

Kurt