Re: LDAP ACM in security considerations (RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-11.txt)

RE: LDAP ACM in security considerations (RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-11.txt)"love it" 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Strassner 
  To: 'Kurt D. Zeilenga' ; [email protected] 
  Cc: [email protected] 
  Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:36 AM
  Subject: RE: LDAP ACM in security considerations (RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-11.txt)


  Thanks Kurt for the revised text. 
  Replica Requirements authors, could you please talk amongst yourselves ;-) and reply with a united "Yes, we love this text" or "No, we don't" please?

  LDUPers, could you also please think about the suggested text and weigh in with your votes please? 

  regards, 
  John Strassner 
  co-chair, LDUP 

  -----Original Message----- 
  From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]] 
  Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 12:08 PM 
  To: [email protected] 
  Cc: [email protected] 
  Subject: Re: LDAP ACM in security considerations (RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-11.txt) 



  [revised to fix typos] 

  As noted in previous discussions, the access control model 
  is only one of the security models which impacts the 
  replication.  To address this, I suggest the security 
  consideration section be replaced with: 

    This document includes security requirements (listed in 
    section 4.8 above) for the replication model and protocol. As 
    noted in Section 3, interoperability may be impacted when 
    replicating among servers that implement non-standard 
    extensions to basic LDAP semantics. Security- related and 
    general LDAP interoperability will be significantly impacted 
    by the degree of consistency with which implementations 
    support existing and future standards detailing LDAP security 
    models, such as a future standard LDAP access control model. 

  Other future standard security models could be listed as 
  well, but one example is sufficient. 

  Kurt