Re: Draft LDUP Meeting Minutes

On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 03:54:25PM -0600, John Strassner wrote:
| All right, let's try again after I had some coffee. ;-)
| =20
| -----Original Message-----
| From: John Strassner [mailto:[email protected]]=20
| Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 1:39 PM
| To: [email protected]
| Subject: Draft LDUP Meeting Minutes
| Importance: High
|=20
| Sorry for the delay in getting these out, I had a family emergency. Ple=
ase
| look them over and send any corrections/additions asap, and I'll forwar=
d to
| the IETF.
| =20
| thanks and kind regards,
| John
|=20
| John Strassner
| Chief Strategy Officer
| Intelliden Corporation
| 90 South Cascade Avenue
| Colorado Springs, CO  80903  USA
| phone: +1.719.785.0648
|   FAX: +1.719.785.0644
| email: [email protected]
|  =20
| LDAP Duplication/Replication/Update Protocols WG (ldup)
| Tuesday, July 15, at 1300-1400
| =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
| CHAIRS:	Chris Apple <[email protected]>
| 		John Strassner <[email protected]>=20
|=20
| Minutes taken by:  John Strassner
|=20
| The meeting was run according to the posted agenda. The meeting
| minutes therefore mirror the agenda topics.
|=20
| LDAP Duplication/Replication/Update Protocols WG (ldup)
|=20
| Tuesday, July 15 at 1300-1400=20
| =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|=20
| CHAIRS: Chris Apple <[email protected]>
|                 John Strassner <[email protected]>
|=20
| AGENDA:
|=20
| 1) Agenda Additions?
|=20
| No additions were asked for, so the meeting proceeded according to the =
agenda.
|=20
| 2) LCUP WG Last Call & Status
|  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-lcup-05.txt
|=20
| No further discussion occurred on this document.
|=20
| 3) Remaining WG Documents
|=20
| InfoMod Draft
|  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-07.txt
|=20
| Rick Huber presented slides describing the progress of this draft.
| This presentation reflects the new group of authors that are=20
| picking up the work. The authors presented a number of questions to
| the working group involving various attributes defined in the draft.
| The first was whether the two RootDSA attributes are really useful.
| They were originally defined to help discovery, but the classes all
| have unique names, so this need is no longer crucial. Steven Legg
| proposed removing them, and people in the meeting agreed. No one=20
| asked to have them left in the draft. Thus, since the MRM draft will
| by definition discover any problems with these or other similar=20
| attributes not being defined in the draft, it was decided to remove
| these for the next revision of the draft.
|=20
| Other attributes =96 attributeExclusionFilter, attributeInclusionFilter=
,
| secondsToWaitDefault, and secondsToWait2 =96 were defined as=20
| disallowing user modification. This didn=92t seem like a good idea, and
| the working group agreed. The new draft will change this as well.
|=20
| The next subject was whether multiple replicas can exist at the same
| context root (see slide 2 of the presentation). This would=20
| facilitate copying replica information. Slide 3 shows an alternative.
| The working group preferred slide 2.
|=20
| General Usage Profile Draft
|  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-usage-profile-05.t=
xt
|=20
| The main work done on this draft since the last meeting was to go
| through the draft and clean up references. In doing so, two issues
| arose. The first involved the status of the locate draft. The status
| on this draft is that it went through Last Call, and was reviewed by
| the IESG. The IESG had some technical issues with the draft. Bob=20
| Morgan will try and update this draft as soon as possible, probably
| one month from now. Kurt thought that it depended on 2247bis, and=20
| that it shouldn=92t be normative. Since the Usage Profile is=20
| informational, it doesn=92t need to be held up by this draft.
|=20
| The other problem was a reference to the taxonomy draft. Note that
| CRISP also has a reference to taxonomy. Roland said that he and
| Ryan would try and update taxonomy by mid-August. Thus, it was
| agreed that the reference to locate could be removed, and the
| authors would wait to see if taxonomy was indeed updated by=20
| mid August.

If by "update", someone means "reissue" then I'm ok with this.  If by
"update" someone means "update and go back through the process" then I ha=
ve
problems.  My notes are that taxonomy has cleared all the hurdles (read:
its in the RFC editors queue waiting for locate).  If locate isn't going
anywhere, working on taxonomy is not worth the time, because of the
hidden dependency.

Ryan