RE: RE: moving access control discussion to LDUP

Kurt wrote:

Please note that I feel the LDUP WG should not undertake
the LDAP ACM work or any other new work.  The LDUP WG
needs to narrow its focus and trim its workload if it
is ever to successfully conclude.

> Please make specific recommendations about how
> the WG should trim its workload while still meeting
> all requirements specified in the requirements I-D.
> The rationale for phrasing my request in this way is
> that the requirements I-D has pass WG Last Call
> and a recommendation has been made for the ADs
> to take it to the IESG for consideration for an IETF
> Last Call. At this stage in a document's lifecycle, we
> cannot trim work from the charter unless we remove
> any affected requirements from that I-D, which would
> mean withdrawing the request from the ADs and would
> only serve to put the working group in a holding pattern
> while a round of mailing list deliberations over which
> requirements are too important to drop, etc.

And also I ask that the charter be clarified as to the
extent of work this WG is undertaking (or intends to
undertake).  In particular, the charter should state
whether or not the group intends to:
 1) Update LDAPv3 "core" specification (including
    its normative references),

John's and my position on that issue are very clear.
We believe that this is a technical issue that should be
discussed in the context of documents which may or
may not actually attempt to do this. I have not seen similar
concerns raised by any other working group member.

 2) Define an ACM for LDAPv3, and/or
 3) Define an authentication identity to
    authorization identity mapping scheme.

(Note that the mapping scheme is needed for an ACM
to provide any reasonable level of consistent access
to client entities in a replicated environment.)

Kurt

> The two items above have been added to the
> proposed WG charter to be posted shortly after this
> reply to your posting. After having a few other
> messages trickle into my mailbox out of time sequence,
> I have observed that there is one other person who
> has expressed concern over adding the ACM work
> to the charter. That's two WG members versus several
> who believe that it should be added. So, consensus still
> leans towards adding the ACM work rather than
> allowing the work to take place based on competing
> individual contributions.

Chris Apple

Currently self-employed pondering the meaning of life in Olde City,
Philadelphia, PA, US, Earth