RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-11.txt

I have read RFC 2820 5 times this morning and cannot find a statement
in it that supports your claim.

Consider the document's abstract:

Abstract

   This document describes the fundamental requirements of an access
   control list (ACL) model for the Lightweight Directory Application
   Protocol (LDAP) directory service.  It is intended to be a gathering
   place for access control requirements needed to provide authorized
   access to and interoperability between directories.

Given that summary of RFC 2820, I don't follow your claim that
the text from the security considerations section makes no sense.

Chris Apple

[email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-11.txt



In reviewing this latest revision to see if the changes
reflect WG input, I find that the following new text in
the the Security Consideration section makes no sense.

  Security- related and general LDAP interoperability will
  be significantly impacted by the degree of consistency
  with which LDAP implementations support the access
  control requirements [RFC2820]. 

RFC 2820 does not provide a technical specification or otherwise make
requirements upon LDAP implementations. It places requirements upon
LDAPext engineering work. That is, RFC 2820 has itself zero impact on
LDAP interoperability.

Kurt

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Apple;Christopher
FN:Chris Apple ([email protected])
TEL;HOME;VOICE:(215) 873-0850
TEL;CELL;VOICE:(610) 585-4241
ADR;WORK:;;214 New Street, Apt 4-N;Philadelphia;PA;19106;United States of America
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:214 New Street, Apt 4-N=0D=0APhiladelphia, PA 19106=0D=0AUnited States of Am=
erica
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[email protected]
REV:20011217T233830Z
END:VCARD