RE: Adding to the LDAP ACM to a WG charter

At 10:34 AM 2001-11-16, John Strassner wrote:
>Finally, you seem to be taking the attitude that we should abandon the
>current work and start over.

No, I have suggested that the proponents, as individuals, of the
LDAPext ACM approach develop this into the best damn solution
they can.  And I have suggested those who are proponents of
alternative approaches develop them into the best damn solution
they can.

I am sure the ADs would (or will, LDAPext isn't concluded yet)
give them LDAPext more time if the ADs believed LDAPext could
complete the work in a reasonable amount of time.  But the fact
is that after many long years of trying, LDAPext could not
complete the work.  Not for lack of desire, not for lack of
effort, not for the lack of expertise, and certainly not for
the lack of good work by many good people.  LDAPext could not
complete the work due to a lack of consensus on the overall
approach and on numerous technical details.

The LDUP WG will fair no better than LDAPext would if it is
allowed to continue.  So, if there if the consensus is to
do this work in a WG, I would much rather re-charter LDAPext
(or create a new WG) to do it then to saddle LDUP with yet
another major work item.

Lastly, I note that I concur many of the statements Paul and
Rob regarding this proposed work item, in particular:
  "The problems are factorable, and problems that get factored
  get solved quicker" [Paul in regards to decoupling LDUP work
  from LDAP ACM work].
  <http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/msg01232.html>

  Rob's "opinion on the progreess of the acl draft, is that,
  unfortunately, in LDAP life-time terms it is very (if not,
  too) late to successfully progress this to a standard, ...
  the main problem as 'entrenched vendors'" [Rob in
  describing one of the problems the IETF must overcome in
  delivering an LDAP ACM]
  <http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/msg01210.html>