RE: Adding to the LDAP ACM to a WG charter

On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:46:18 -0800, "Paul Leach"
<[email protected]> wrote :

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard V Huber [mailto:[email protected]] 
> > 
> > Since LDAPEXT is shutting down, the ACM work needs a new 
> > home.  Since most of the members of LDAPEXT are also part of 
> > LDUP, and since the ACM work is needed for LDUP, LDUP seems 
> > like the right place to do it.
> > 
> > Access control is a complicated topic.  I think it needs the 
> > benefit of the technical review a WG will provide.
> 
> The last paragraph at most argues for _some_ WG, but not necessarily
> this one.

This begs the question "does LDUP need an ACM?"

Now I think so, because I see that without an ACM, most of the useful (to
me)
LDUP topic are gutted.

I should think that folks who are saying that LDUP should not take on ACM
should
be providing at least some thought on what LDUP can accomplish without it.

> As Kurt has noted, the previous paragraph says that the same gang who
> couldn't get an ACM done in LDAPEXT are just as likely to not get it
> done in LDUP, and in the meantime, the focus on replication is vitiated.

Ok, as a thought experiment, let's posit a new "ldapacm" wg.  Why wouldn't
this
group have the same players?  Why wouldn't it have the same problems?
I would think creating a new wg would just create more overhead and further
slow
LDUP because it would need to wait for this other WG.

Ryan