Re: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals

Mark,
	First, let me say that Chris, John, and Kurt have each
tried to keep Ned and me in the loop on the discussions; I am
also subscribed to the list, so I can and do follow issues raised here.
I have provided a summary of the issues raised to date to the IESG
as a whole, so there is also some awareness of the issues
among those not specifically concerned with the APPs area.
	While all of us (Chairs, ADs, IESG) are concerned both to ensure
an open process and high quality output, we're not here to dictate
the results.  At this point, a working group member has suggested
that the working group reconsider an alternative proposal, and
the chairs have issued a call to the working group to comment on
whether that consideration is needed and should happen.  Two
questions lie at the heart of that call:  has the working group considered
both proposals and come to rough consensus?  if so, should the
working group reconsider its previous decision?
	Previous consideration given to this proposal obviously factors into
the response to that first question.  Assessments of the relative quality
and applicability of the two proposals factors into the second.  So does
the stage of the working group process; as we move forward
through various decisions (adopting drafts as working group
items, setting milestones, and so on), the working group needs
to be able to focus on the next step, rather than revisiting questions
which have been decided.  Our process does allow for reviewing
those questions at any stage (after all, Draft Standards sometimes
recycle at Proposed for exactly this reason), but the reasons to
change a decided issue shift to ones in which fundamental
questions of technical suitability, security, interoperability, or scalability
are at stake.  To put it another way, we are always sensitive
to "show-stoppers" which mean that deployment on the Internet
will be bad for the user or the Internet itself, but that does not
mean all questions must constantly be open for reconsideration.  The
chairs have asked the working group participants in this case to express their
views of whether or not this is needed in this case, and an explicit 
call for consensus
on this point seems to me a good way of resolving the issues.
	Let me say thanks for expressing your concerns and for
giving a response to Chris's call for opinions.  I encourage others
who have opinions to put their fingers to keyboards as well.
				regards,
					Ted Hardie


>Chris Apple wrote:
>  >
>>2) It is an open topic for discussion. Specifically, John
>>    and I need to see comments (preferably with rationale)
>...snip...
>>    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
>...snip...
>>	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