RE: WG Charter Proposal v2

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 9:25 PM
To: Mark C Smith
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: WG Charter Proposal v2



At 11:32 AM 4/1/2003, Mark C Smith wrote:
>Chris Apple wrote:
>>Well, for starters:
>>  The following activities are beyond the scope of this WG:
>>        Revising the LDAP "core" technical specification [RFC3377
>>        and its normative references] (including its information
>>       and service models).
>>
>>CWA> This is an old discussion based on a perusal of the mailing
>>     list archive. However, since views may be different now than
>>     in the past. I think its worth waiting for others to weigh
>>     in on the issue. If a substantial portion of other WG members
>>     state their agreement on the mailing list that the suggested
>>     text be included, John and I can consider whether consensus
>>     exists on adding it.
>
>The working group should proceed with caution. If we adopt a statement such
as suggested above, an argument could be made that any form of multimaster
replication requires an extension of the LDAP models... which means such a
charter statement might prevent the WG from progressing some (most?) of the
LDUP documents.

Yes, the current documents being produced by the WG assume
this WG is chartered to revise the LDAP "core" technical
specification (specifically, LDUP changes the LDAP
service model) and that's obviously problematic.

CWA> Speaking as a Co-Chair, The WG has achieved consensus
     on pursuing an experimental publication path - the documents
     (with the exception of LCUP) produced by this WG, if they
     actually do *require* changes to the LDAP core specifications
     to be considered implementable, would surely lead to *experimental*
     updates and not standards track revisions. So from a process
     point of view this situation, if it actually becomes a
     reality, is not as problematic as implied above. 

However, if the WG intents to continue under that assumption
that it can revise as necessary the LDAP "core" technical
specification, then it should say so in its charter.

Or say nothing about this in the charter.  That I don't recommend.

Kurt

CWA> The WG has always intended to handle LDUP specification with
     LDAPv3 extensibility mechanisms. Initiating any standards
     track revisions or updates to the core LDAP specifications
     would be a last resort. So I don't yet buy into your claim
     that the existing documents assume that LDUP is chartered
     to revise the core LDAPv3 specifications. Speaking as a WG
     member, I'll need some justification of that claim to evaluate
     it.

CWA> Please point out to the WG which LDUP features are impossible
     or impractical to realize without revising the core LDAPv3
     specifications, which of those specifications need to
     be revised, and how those specifications need to be revised
     for each LDUP feature identified as such. You should also
     provide a proof or some justification of why each of these
     features is impossible or impractical to realize using an
     appropriate combination of LDAPv3 extensibility mechanisms.
     This is the only way for myself or any other WG member to
     determine if we agree with your belief that this issue is
     significant enough to address in the charter revision.
 
 
Chris Apple - Principal Architect

DSI Consulting, Inc.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dsi-consulting.com