Re: Adding to the LDAP ACM to a WG charter

There seem to be a few major points that you
are making below - I'm trying to distill what
you wrote to a few distinct and clear bullets.
Please correct any errors of interpretation I've
made or add to the list as appropriate. No judgement
at all implied here, I'm just trying to understand
the points you are making clearly so that we can
discuss them in a productive way.

1) You are asserting that the IETF process won't
   work for LDAP ACM and would need to be modified
   slightly to result in the production of a good
   LDAP ACM specification.

2) You are advocating that this process modification
   would be that multiple proposals for an LDAP ACM
   should be written outside of the context of any WG.

3) You are expecting one of these proposals to become
   vetted in some way to become the eventual product
   of a WG other than LDUP.

4) You are asserting that the LDUP WG will either produce an
   inferior or at least a delayed LDAP ACM than a different
   WG with the same members would be able to.

Chris.

>From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Adding to the LDAP ACM to a WG charter
>Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:55:57 -0800
>
>
>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
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp