Re: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals

Generally, I agree with Ron's conclusion, that the WG should continue
with LCUP as it's been discussed and documented, and not try to morph
it into something new at this late date.
 
The lesson I have been/ continue to learn is that the IETF
standardization
process lends itself well to documenting established concensus, and
is lousy at documenting or arriving at new designs.
 
Kurt's work should proceed, as individual contributions, until there
are
there are sufficient collaborators to constitute the core of a working
group interested in further documentation of what they've learned
through
their joint development.
 
I swear I'm at the point of wanting to see the results of the first
interop
face-to-face meeting before constituting a new work group!  Think how
the history of DNSSEC and IPSEC would be different!  or LDUP, for that
matter!
 
Kurt has something worth while he wants to do - he should do it. 
Those
who agree that's worth while should work with him on it.  If those who
do so are part of the LDUP work group, then they should speak up and
be heard, now.  If not, then Kurt's work should continue outside the
WG.  If so, then I'd say there might not be anything the WG should do
but retire, while the competing designs settle out through competition
in the market place which is more use to customers, if indeed one
is better than the other.
 
To turn the tables, I don't recall the charter of the group including
a
bake off of competing designs, the thorough evaluation of competing
designs, etc. for LCUP.  If such is the desire of the WG, then by all
means change the charter ;-)  Until then, in the absense of
substantial
support for Kurt's proposal, it sounds to me like the LCUP direction
is
pretty well set.  It would be useful to have those interested in
continuing
the current LCUP direction voice their opinions, too, so the decision
to go forward is not simply a matter of momentum.
 
Ed
 
=================
Ed Reed
Novell, Inc.
+1 585 624 2402
[email protected] 
Note:  Area code is 585

>>> Mark C Smith <[email protected]> 5/28/2003 9:43:55 AM >>>


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