Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP

Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:

>In my opinion that there is not energy left in the WG to complete
>LDUP on any track.  Also, I feel there is little consumer interest
>in LDUP to justify further IETF work in this area.  So, not only
>do I not support option 1), I do not support leaving any LDUP
>deliverables on our charter.  Instead, I suggest that individuals
>pursue publication of the portions they feel are worthy (e.g., URP).
>While the WG can review this work, but I prefer the WG no longer
>be responsible for seeing such documents through.  I also believe
>the WG should not attempt to review any LDAP Admin Model nor
>LDAP Access Control documents.  Instead, it should refer any
>such request for review to the LDAPEXT list.
>
>With respect to LCUP, as I noted at IETF#55, we're not at the end
>of the LCUP engineering process but somewhere in the middle.  We
>still got some significant issues to reach closure on.
>
The other authors and I are currently reviewing what we hope to propose 
as LCUP draft version 04.  I believe we have addressed the issues 
brought up during Last Call.

>A WG may
>aide in seeing LCUP through.  I am a bit concerned that the LCUP
>effort is seems also to struggling a bit, but I believe there is a
>reasonable level of interest (both within our community as well
>as our consumers) in LCUP.  I think the key to this being successful
>as a WG effort is narrowing the WG's focus to LCUP standardization
>and having our chairs, with the help from the ADs, keep this
>effort on a very short leash.
>
>Hence, I support option 2 with a couple of caveats.
>  I) LCUP be the only WG deliverable
>    Ia) resolve major outstanding issues by IETF#56
>    Ib) progress documents by IETF#57
>  II) allow review of LDUP I-D produced by individuals
>     (as long as these reviews does not slow LCUP progress)
>
>Kurt
>
>At 12:56 PM 12/12/2002, Chris Apple wrote:
>  
>
>>As mentioned in the proposed WG meeting minutes, there
>>are currently two proposals on the table for concluding
>>LDUP:
>>
>>1) A proposal from the co-chairs. Summarized as follows:
>>
>>A) Publish LCUP spec as Proposed Standard after successful
>>  passage of a WG Last Call.
>>
>>B) Publish remaining WG documents as either Informational
>>  or Experimental after resolving gross inconsistencies and
>>  explicitly identifying areas where the WG was unable to
>>  achieve consensus in those documents.
>>
>>C) Reference X.500 BAC in the General Usage Profile as well
>>  as the X.500 Administrative Model (perhaps from the drafts
>>  by Steven L. and Kurt Z., perhaps directly from the X.500
>>  Recommendations themselves)
>>
>>D) Reference X.500 BAC and Administrative Model in other WG
>>  documents as needed.
>>
>>E) Documents should enter WG Last Call on or before
>>  the July 2003 IETF Meeting.
>>
>>F) Conclude LDUP when last document is published as an RFC.
>>
>>2) A proposal from Mark Wahl. Summarized as follows:
>>
>>A) Publish LCUP as a Proposed Standard after successful
>>  passage of WG Last Call.
>>
>>B) Conclude LDUP once LCUP spec is published as an RFC.
>>
>>C) Convert all WG documents to individual I-D contributions
>>  and allow editors to work out consensus (or not) outside
>>  of the context of a WG.
>>
>>I have spoke with a number of folks who have opinions about
>>the pros and cons of either approach.
>>
>>Please post your views to the list on the pros and cons of
>>these approaches and indicate which way you are leaning at
>>this time.
>>
>>Also please feel free to post your observations about any
>>inaccuracies in the summaries of the proposals above.
>>
>>Chris Apple - Principal Architect
>>
>>DSI Consulting, Inc.
>>
>>mailto:[email protected]
>>
>>http://www.dsi-consulting.com
>>    
>>
>
>  
>