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

The proposed re-write of the text in question doesn't add any value to
the document in my opinion. Since the LDUP requirements document and
RFC 2820 are both informational and are both requirements documents, I
see no harm in one referring to the other in the Security Considerations
section as currently written.

The clarification that you are seeking to include is already well
understood and I believe redundant with existing IETF process.
As a co-chair, I don't feel inclined to add the language revision you
propose to this document at this time. You are of course free to post
such a comment in response to the IETF Last Call for the LDUP
requirements
document.

As an example of how this language revision could be perceived as
redundant
with existing IETF process, keep this in mind:

One potential output of the LDUP Access Control Design Team could be
such
a standards-track technical specification, albeit likely constrained to
the
minimal subset of those requirements needed to address access control
relative
to LDAP replication.

Chris Apple

[email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 10:37 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-11.txt


At 06:41 AM 2002-03-06, Chris Apple wrote:
>I have read RFC 2820 5 times this morning and cannot find a statement 
>in it that supports your claim.

Much like the LDUP Requirements I-D, RFC 2820 is NOT a protocol
technical specification.  It outlines design requirements which
engineers of a technical specification should consider.

The statement "LDAP implementations support the access
control requirements [RFC2820]" makes no sense as
RFC 2820 makes no requirements upon LDAP implementations.

Now, the statement could be rewritten:
  Security- related and general LDAP interoperability will
  be significantly impacted by the degree of consistency
  with which LDAP implementations support a future Standard
  Track technical specification meeting Access Control
  Requirements for LDAP [RFC2820]. 


Kurt



>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