RE: LDUP WG Meeting Minutes

As-a-Co-Chair:

Your clarification is appreciated. However, for the purposes of the
meeting minutes,
I believe that the present text is generic enough to cover this and the
other
types (those not motivated by present charter scope) of motivations that
were
expressed for the same types of concerns.

"There were also concerns raised about how far the proposed work plan
goes 
down the path of allowing for the possibility of the current design team
members actually creating specifications for access control in the
context
of LDAPv3 replication."

There were some folks who didn't feel that it was appropriate based on
simply
not knowing what it was the team would produce at a detailed level in
the earlier
Stages (those that pre-date stages which would involve writing specs on
the
topic that is out of scope). This represents a different motivating
factor than
your concern over how the present charter scope was or was not applied
to the
proposed work plan for the design team. The minutes were getting long
enough
and I didn't want to start adding more volume to them by documenting
specific
positions held by specific individuals.

In regards to the details of your clarification, I assert that the
design team
is not required to bound its efforts by the current or any other version
of the
WG charter. Admittedly, if its members do work which the WG doesn't
believe that
it could eventually find to be useful, time and effort are being wasted
- but even
that won't impact the WG significantly because the WG doesn't have to
consider in
detail any input that it doesn't believe is within the scope of its
current charter.
I also don't think there is any harm done to have the work plan be as
is, with its
many exit points based on WG consensus, prior to any real access control
work being
done by either the design team or the WG. If WG consensus is to not
undertake or
even attempt to reference access control specifications, it will surely
tell the
design team not to proceed further; then John and I would declare the
design team
as concluded. If the members of the design team decide to proceed
regardless
(which I doubt would happen), as co-chairs, John and I would be required
to make
statements prohibiting on-list discussion of any associated outputs from
the design
team. Given that scenario, I'm having trouble understanding what harm
you are trying
to prevent by raising the concern based on charter scope applicability
to the design
team's tentative work plan.

Not-as-a-Co-Chair:

With that said, WG consensus could be that it is uncomfortable with the
design
team's work plan extending so far into unknown territory, regardless of
the
lack of harm that doing so represents.

As-a-Co-Chair:

Also, because your particular motivation of concern to be squarely a
process issue,
please advise me if you believe that I am missing knowledge of
documented IETF
process which states that design teams can't be formed to work on topics
on which
a WG is dependent, but which currently fall out of the present scope of
the WG charter.
As a part of this advice, please provide as specific a reference as
possible from IETF
process documentation. Then, John and I can consider whether or not we
have the same
interpretation of that referenced text as you do.

Chris Apple

[email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 4:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; John Strassner
Subject: Re: LDUP WG Meeting Minutes


At 10:24 AM 2002-04-13, Chris Apple wrote:
>11) LDUP Access Control Design Team
>
>The co-chair present at the WG meeting presented a status report on the

>recently formed LDUP Access Control Design Team. Specifically, a terse 
>mission statement and proposed team work plan was presented to the WG. 
>There were some concerns expressed about the lack of any obvious status

>reports into the WG being included explicitly in the work plan. There 
>were also concerns raised about how far the proposed work plan goes 
>down the path
>of allowing for the possibility of the current design team members
>actually
>creating specifications for access control in the context of LDAPv3
>replication.
>A third area of concern was not having the design team membership
>included
>in the document presented during the WG meeting. The co-chair agreed to
>do the
>following to help alleviate these concerns:
>
>        i) revise the design team's work plan to include explicit
status
>         reports and inputs to the WG
>        ii) add a list of design team member names with e-mail
addresses
>          to the work plan
>        iii) post the resulting document to the WG mailing list for
>           further discussion

I noted that the LDUP WG is not yet chartered to do engineering work in
the area of LDAP Access Controls and, hence, the WG's design team must
limit its work (until such time a charter revision is approved) to
making a recommendation on how to revise the charter.

>12) WG Charter Bashing
>
>The room consensus was that the WG charter needs to be revised to
>address:

While I believe there is consensus that the LDUP WG charter needs to
revised, I do not believe there is any consensus as to how the charter
should be revised.  In particular, I do not believe there is yet
consensus on which items should or should not be added/modified/removed.
No specific charter revision was proposed or discussed at the meeting.

>        + actual versus anticipated publication of revisions to WG 
>documents
>        + the formation of the LDUP Access Control Design Team
>        + the current dependency of the WG charter on the Access
Control
>        deliverables of the soon-to-conclude LDAPEXT WG
>        + the LDAPv3 framing/grouping concept
>        + an administrative model for replication
>        + replication-relevant access control input from the
>        LDUP Access Control Design Team

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