Re: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals

Chris Apple wrote:
 >
> 2) It is an open topic for discussion. Specifically, John
>    and I need to see comments (preferably with rationale)
>    about the value (or lack thereof) of proceeding as
>    Kurt suggests. Do not wait for further communication
>    from either John, Kurt, or I to start this discussion.
>    John and I don't want to have to resort to interpreting
>    silence on this issue in one way or another.
> 
>    Make your opinions known NOW! This applies to you even
>    if you are an author of one of the drafts covered by
>    Kurt's request.

I suspect we are obligated to do something like what Kurt suggests: 
compare and contrast draft-ietf-ldup-lcup with draft-zeilenga-ldup-sync. 
  If we don't, the ADs or IESG will probably make us do so eventually 
anyway.

But I am concerned about process issues surrounding this situation.  Did 
the LDUP WG chairs declare consensus prematurely or inappropriately?  I 
assume the ADs are involved and will help sort this out.  The authors of 
draft-ietf-ldup-lcup did give serious consideration to the ideas 
presented in draft-zeilenga-ldup-sync; some of that discussion took 
place on the mailing list a while ago and some was private mail among 
the authors of the two documents. It is not as if the alternative 
proposal was ignored by the WG or by the LCUP authors.

One additional observation: to remain viable, the IETF needs to accept 
and encourage contributions from many people, not just a few people. 
When a WG deliverable that has been nearly completed is derailed at the 
last moment, the liklihood of the people who volunteered to work on that 
deliverable doing so in the future is greatly reduced. Now, one could 
argue that this is not a technical consideration but a political one. I 
would argue that it is both: the technical quality of the work done in 
the IETF (and the likelihood of widespread implementation) is greatly 
influenced by the number of different implementors who contribute. For 
LDAP related work, we seem to have fewer and fewer contributors each 
year. This is a problem.


> 4) John and I will await confirmation/clarification of our
>    understanding of Kurt's request from Kurt before making
>    the request to our ADs to slip the milestone date to give
>    us enough time to consider whether the WG wishes to:
> 
> 	a) proceed as Kurt suggests
> 	b) stay with our presently chartered course of action,
> 	   albeit with some slippage
> 	c) take another path completely different from those

If you are asking for a vote, I vote for (b). But the larger procedural 
issues (and the ADs) will probably dictate what we must do... and I 
suspect we will end up doing something close to (a).

-Mark Smith
  Netscape