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

At 09:27 AM 2002-03-06, Chris Apple wrote:
>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.

I don't see how my clarification is redundant to IETF process.

My suggestion is intended to clarify the meaning of the
statement.

As it written, it implies that RFC 2820 is a technical
specification which LDAP implementations can support and
if they do so the security consideration is addressed.
However, as RFC 2820 places no requirements on LDAP
implementations and hence whether implementations support
it or not has no impact on the underlying security
consideration.

With my clarification, statement would implies that the
security consideration is addressed by LDAP implementations
supporting a future LDAP ACM technical specification.

Kurt