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

>From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]] 
>Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 11:48 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Cc: [email protected]
>Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-11.txt

>>At 07:59 AM 2002-03-06, Chris Apple wrote:
>>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.

>I disagree.  Some will read that statement as imply that there is
already an LDAP ACM technical specifications which LDAP implementations
can support.  As this is a security consideration, I believe it needs to
be clear that it is referring to a future technical specification which
meets the requirements stated in RFC 2820.

>>As a co-chair, I don't feel inclined to add the language revision you 
>>propose to this document at this time.

>Well, I'm inclined to disagree with you.  The editor has made a
substantive changes to the I-D.  Regardless of what they were in
response to, this WG must be given an opportunity to review those
changes.  If the WG does not agree with the changes, the document must
be changed to reflect the WG consensus.

>Given that the WG has yet been given an opportunity to review these
changes, I think it is premature for you to declare consensus in regards
to these changes.

That wasn't a declaration of consensus - that was a process call on my
part. I don't think its appropriate to
add language to a requirements document that is redundant with IETF
process. I do believe its OK to add language
that *refers* to IETF Process but personally find the value in doing so
to be marginal. Your language proposal
appears to me to be redundant with IETF process rather than referring to
it.

WG members could establish a consensus otherwise - and that would indeed
require discussion about the topic on the list.

I'm watching...

>I certainly have not had time to review all the changes made, the
document revision was only recently announced.  I recommend you give the
working group two weeks to review the recent changes and comment.

I consider WG review of changes made to the document to have started
today. 2 weeks sounds like a reasonable interval to me.

>>One potential output of the LDUP Access Control Design Team could be 
>>such a standards-track technical specification,

>I do not believe the LDUP Access Control Design Team is presently
chartered to undertake engineering of any technical specification. If I
am mistaken, please advise.

>Kurt

Per my earlier postings on this topic and pending the meeting the Design
Team will have this week, the "charter"
for the Design Team will be presented during the LDUP WG meeting as a
proposal. For now and until the WG establishes
consensus on the LDUP Access Control Design Team "charter" proposal, the
Design Team's "charter" is to devise a
terse mission statement, draft work program, and present both to the WG.
One *possible* outcome from the
Design Team's presentation to the WG could be that the WG establishes
consensus that certain technical specifications
related to Access Control be written by the Design Team members and
presented to the WG for consideration. Please note
my use of the word "potential" in the original posting. The statement in
my original posting on this topic is consistent
with my prior postings on the topic of LDUP Access Control Design Team
"charter."

Chris.

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