RE: Process Point (Was: LDAP Requirements comments)

I was only replying to the process point. I have not been able to read
the other postings that you mention yet. But will reply more
specifically
in context after I do.

Chris.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 7:58 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: 'Ryan Moats'; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Process Point (Was: LDAP Requirements comments)


At 04:51 PM 2001-11-23, Chris Apple wrote:
>I'd prefer that any comments with regards to the requirements document
>be handled as a part of IETF Last Call unless they are show stoppers.

Do you consider any of the issues raised "show stoppers"?

In particular,

1) The multi-master definition precluded transactional
consistency, counter to the document's G2 requirement
that transactional consistency not be precluded,

2) Per Ed's comment, it would appear wise to state that
LDUP design MAY preclude transactional consistency,

3) confusing use of RFC 2119 imperatives, and

4) Security considerations issues due to the changes in
assumptions made by WG (namely LDAPext delivering an ACM).

5) any of the other issues noted by either Ed or I in
recent WG discussions.

Kurt