RE: Proposals for Concluding LDUP

Two points that I have heard from WG participants verbally, but which I've
yet to see expressed on the mailing list by those participants are as
follows:

1) Even if a document is experimental rather than standards track, that's
closer
to having an interoperable "standard" than we have today. So if we have at
least
a set of informational and experimental documents, there are at least a few
references to point towards in RFPs/RFIs and other such methods of assessing
Directory Services solutions from various vendors.

2) Given the interdependence of various LDUP documents, it is more likely
that
the documents will progress as a *useful* set if they are worked on within
the
context of a working group (option 1). The rationale given for this comment
was that one or more individual contributions (option 2) could "drop off the
face of the earth" and the community would be left with the remainder of the
set,
This would have the effect of making the remaining documents less complete
and
therefore less useful. In fact, some otherwise publishable documents could
even
become unpublishable due to the disappearance of a referenced document. This
could result in more work to resolve the effects of the disappearing
document
on the other specs, resulting in even more delay in getting them published.
So there is a cascading effect built into the documents through references
that we'd be better off, even if they are experimental rather than standards
track, if there were either all of the documents or none of the documents.

I want to be clear that those comments didn't originate from either myself
or John Strassner as either WG participants or co-chairs; but I did want
to make the rest of the WG aware of our consideration as co-chairs of these
comments along with the others posted to the list.

I also would like to note that as a co-chair, while I clearly see the
relevance
of point 2 above to this discussion, I think there could be some exceptions
to the cascading effect that it points out. Whether the combination of any
such exceptions prove to produce a useful set of specifications in the event
of the demise of other specs as individual contributions is a topic worth
discussing.

Chris Apple - Principal Architect

DSI Consulting, Inc.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dsi-consulting.com

-----Original Message-----
From: John McMeeking [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:22 PM
To: Kurt D. Zeilenga
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Richard Huber
Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP


 

 

 



Just reinforce Kurt's point -- at least I think this was his point:

Option 1 does not produce something that vendors will be able to implement
and guarantee interoperability.  It captures work we have already done,
with a bit of clean up and an effort to document known holes/issues.

Option 1 and 2 differ in whether this work is done under the umbrella of
the working group, or as individual submissions.


John  McMeeking



 

                      "Kurt D.

                      Zeilenga"                To:       Richard Huber
<[email protected]>                                           
                      <[email protected]        cc:
[email protected], [email protected]                          
                      g>                       Subject:  Re: Proposals for
Concluding LDUP                                     
                      Sent by:

                      owner-ietf-ldup@m

                      ail.imc.org

 

 

                      01/15/2003 05:36

                      AM

 

 






At 11:21 PM 1/14/2003, Richard Huber wrote:
>I'm in favor of option 1.  As noted by Felix and Ryan, a standard way of
>replicating data would be very helpful to many users.

How does option 1 provide "a standard way to replicate data"?

>And I believe we have authors to finish up the work.

Good to hear.