Re: Adding to the LDAP ACM to a WG charter

Thanks. So far, you are the only LDUP WG member
to raise such concerns. Which means that concensus
is currently leaning towards adding LDAP ACM to the
LDUP WG charter. That is clear by looking at the
postings on the topic in the mailing list archives.

However, I am still on the hook to post another
charter revision that includes LDAP ACM as a tool
to gauge WG concensus on the matter based on a
concrete proposal for deliverables.

As you know, WG concensus is what must be reflected
by John and I to the ADs and the IESG when it comes
to charter scoping, deliverables to be produced,
and additional work items.

So far, we only have a general concensus that the
ACM work should be added to the LDUP WG Charter.
If we are unable to achieve WG concensus on the
details of how to add it, it would of course not
be adopted.

All of the above would be subject to AD and IESG approval...

Which means that even if the WG believes it should do something,
it could be told "not so" by the IESG or the ADs.

Chris Apple

Who has finally figured out that life is mostly and rightfully
about wondering what to fix for dinner.


>From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email protected]>
>To: "Chris Apple" <[email protected]>
>CC: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Adding to the LDAP ACM to a WG charter
>Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 21:02:44 -0800
>
>At 05:59 PM 2001-11-15, Chris Apple wrote:
> >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.
>
>I see no need to change IETF process [RFC 2026] or
>WG guidelines [RFC 2418] and am not advocating such.
>The IETF process and guidelines are flexible.  The
>process considers both working group and individual
>efforts in producing RFCs.
>
>Presently, I believe that LDAP ACM standardization
>work is best pursued on an individual basis.
>
> >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.
>
>I am suggesting that we let individuals pursue this work
>under the established process.
>
> >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.
>
>I am hoping that one or more proposals of appropriate quality,
>drafted by individuals, would be submitted for consideration
>for publication.  As with any other submission to the IETF,
>the IETF would review these works and take appropriate action.
>
>My assertions apply equally to LDUP as to any WG which might
>consider taking on LDAP ACM work (or be formed specifically
>for this work).  Any reference I made to LDUP was solely due
>to the fact it happens to be the WG considering taking on
>LDAP ACM work.  I don't think changing the WG venue matters
>much (as the interested parties follow the work).
>
> >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.
>
>I believe any WG taking on LDAP ACM work will be stalled due
>to lack of consensus.  Individuals, not subject to WG
>consensus, can produce an LDAP ACM for consideration by the
>IETF much faster.
>
>Of course, any LDAP ACM I-D submitted for consideration on
>the Standard Track, whether produced by a WG or individuals,
>has IETF consensus requirements.
>
>And, in terms of meeting overall desires (powerful, flexible,
>extensible, etc.), I think individuals can do better than
>a WG in this case.  LDAPext had to remove functionality to
>remove contention.  Individuals generally don't have to do
>that.
>
>Anybody remember the SGMP/CMOT wars which resulted in SNMP?
>Basically I am suggesting a similar approach.  That is, let
>each set of individuals develop the very best specification
>they can, make "where's the ACM?" buttons ;-) and then
>consider how to proceed.
>
>Kurt
>
> >>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
>


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