Re: LDAPv4? (Was: Updating "core" specification)

All editors should respond with their opinions on Kurt's current text
proposal for clarifying the charter to the WG mailing list ASAP.

I believe it reflects the strategy that we currently are
pursuing because of LDAPv3 installed base at the time
of initial charter creation. However, I want to hear from
the editors if this language is too constraining based on
what we know about the problems we still have to solve.

Chris.

Currently self-employed pondering the meaning of life in Olde City,
Philadelphia, PA, US, Earth
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email protected]>
To: "Chris Apple" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: LDAPv4? (Was: Updating "core" specification)


>
> At 02:54 PM 2001-11-16, Chris Apple wrote:
> >No. But I don't see the value in writing that in...what is
> >this particular concern based on?
>
> Again, I am still trying to figure out what is beyond scope
> of this working group.
>
> Can the previously suggested statement be further narrowed?
> Say to:
>
>   This group may extend the LDAPv3 "core" specification
>   as necessary to deliver LDAP Replication.  However,
>   updating the LDAPv3 "core" specification is beyond scope
>   of this working group.
>
>
>