Re: Adding to the LDAP ACM to a WG charter

On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 11:02:30AM +1100, Steven Legg wrote:
| 
| Ryan Moats wrote:
| > 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?"
| 
| No. While it is true that replicating a secure environment requires that
| the participating servers have the ability to support a common ACM, the
| LDUP architecture, protocol, URP, etc have no dependence on the actual
| details of the ACM(s) being used. We can complete the LDUP work without
| defining an ACM. Deployment is a separate issue.

Pardon? I thought the idea of LDUP was a standard that would lead to
interoperability.  I don't see how this is possible if deployment is
ignored.

Ryan