Access Control Design Team Work Program
"Chris Apple" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Organization | DSI-Consulting, Inc. |
| Message-ID | <000001c2120c$bea16170$0300a8c0@D7ST2111> |
Text file attached. Please review and post comments to the LDUP WG mailing list or send directly to John Strassner or myself. Also note that despite e-mail address change, [email protected] ends up in my mail client as well - so if you get bounced mail, try sending to the old one as a second choice. Should be taken care of on the WG Charter page soon. Chris Apple Principal Architect DSI Consulting, Inc. mailto: [email protected] http://www.dsi-consulting.com
Chris Apple ([email protected]).vcf
(text/x-vcard, 505 B)
BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Apple;Chris;;;(E-mail) FN:Chris Apple ([email protected]) ORG:DSI Consulting, Inc. TITLE:Principal Architect TEL;WORK;VOICE:(610) 585-4241 TEL;HOME;VOICE:(215) 873-0850 TEL;CELL;VOICE:(610) 585-4241 ADR;WORK:;;214 New Street #4-N;Philadelphia;PA;19106;United States of America LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:214 New Street #4-N=0D=0APhiladelphia, PA 19106=0D=0AUnited States of Americ= a EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[email protected] REV:20020611T221647Z END:VCARD
LDUP Access Control Design Team Charter.txt
(text/plain, 3.5 KB)
LDUP Access Control Design Team Members James Benedict [email protected] Tim Hahn [email protected] Matt Hirsch [email protected] Rick Huber [email protected] Steven Legg [email protected] Ed Reed [email protected] Mission Statement The Design Team will make access control recommendations and proposals for the LDUP Working Group to consider. Work Program The Design Team's Work Program shall be for the Design Team to provide input for consideration by the WG according to a schedule of work items defined below. The Design Team shall provide input to the WG after the completion of work items 1, 2, 5, and, if the Design Team has not been dissolved, 7. 06/2002 1) This mission statement/work plan. 07/2002 2) Descriptions of the minimal set of access control problems that need to be solved and RFC 2820 requirements that need to be addressed to enable interoperable LDAP replication. 07/2002 3) Documentation of one or more work programs consisting of a set of milestones/deliverables with brief descriptions of content likely to be contained in an initial set of draft(s) that would enable an IETF WG to produce standards track technical specifications which addresses the minimal set of access control problems defined in 2). 07/2002 4) Documentation of one or more proposals corresponding to the work programs described above documenting non-IETF approaches at solving the minimal set of access control problems in 2). 08/2002 5) A matrix documenting pros and cons associated with each work program or proposal documented in 3) and 4). 09/2002 6) The WG will discusses the proposals and the pros/cons and will attempt to achieve consensus around one of the proposals from the Design Team. If, after an appropriate amount of discussion time on the list, the Co-Chairs are able to judge that consensus will not be achieved on any of the proposals generated by the the Design Team, the Co-Chairs will dissolve the Design Team and this Work Program ends. 10/2002 7) If the WG achieves concensus on one of the proposals documented in 3) (or a modified version of one of those proposals), the WG may also request that the Co-Chairs inform the Design Team to create and publish one or more I-Ds. If the WG decides not to request that the Design Team produce the documents, the Design Team will dissolve, this Work Program will end, and the Co-Chairs will consider the matter of Access Control for LDUP closed. If the WG decides to request that the Design Team produce one or more documents based on one of the proposals documented in 3) above, then the Co-Chairs will draft a charter revision proposal including the required work items associated with the proposal accepted by the WG. 11/2002 8) The Design Team dissolves when one of the following happens: a) The WG accepts the I-Ds published by the Design Team as a basis for standardization (this doesn't preclude successive discourse about details but it does mean that there is no longer a need for the Editors of those I-Ds to exclusively hold discussions about the documents off-list). b) The WG rejects the I-Ds published by the Design Team as a basis for standardization. c) The WG is unable to achieve consensus on any proposal documented by the design team. d) The WG achieves consensus that one of the proposals documented in 4) is the best way to proceed.