Re: inetOrgPerson Object Class - where is it?

Hi Chris.  I have no comments on the LSD stuff, rather, I was wondering
what sort of career changes you were undertaking.  Keep in touch
Sandi

>----------
>From:  Christopher W Apple[SMTP:[email protected]]
>Sent:  Monday, August 10, 1998 11:47 PM
>To:    Multiple recipients of list IETF-LSD
>Subject:       Re: inetOrgPerson Object Class - where is it?
>
>>Alexis Bor wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there any effort or interest in progressing this?  I have a number of
>>> customers that would like to use it in company-wide deployments, but
>>> want to make sure that they will have the highest chance of success of
>>> using a common object class when communicating with other companies.
>>
>>My plan is to publish the inetOrgPerson draft very soon as an
>>Informational RFC.  Are you suggesting that I should put it up for
>>Proposed Standard instead?  I fear that may be controversial.  It is not
>>the product of any IETF working group, and several other person schema
>>proposals are floating around as well.
>>
>>-Mark
>
>There is an (expired now, I believe) I-D that is an incomplete product of
>the LSD WG. This I-D was intended to result in standardization of a minimum
>white pages schema (MWPS) for LDAPv3. The -00.txt version was a little
>too contraversial in that it introduced extensible attribute definitions
>using labels contained within the attribute values. The concensus of the
>WG was that the labelling should be promoted to its own I-D and that
>there should be a standards-track object class definition, reusing
>existing attribute types where ever possible, that was to be an LDAPv3-usable
>implementation of the IWPS standard.
>
>There are three reasons why this document was not published as such by
>the 8/7 deadline:
>
>        1) So far there seems to be little interest in the activities of
>           the LSD WG in general and we are considering disbanding it
>           and progressing unexpired documents.
>
>        2) I've had come recent career changes that have required my
>           immediate attention.
>
>        3) The co-authors didn't bug me about it, but this is mostly my
>           fault, because I didn't bug them either.
>
>I'm cc'ing the LSD mailing list on this response. What I'd like to see posted
>to that list, is whether or not anyone cares to see the rest of its
>unpublished deliverables materialize and progress. This was to be a topic
>on the agenda, but we can save ourselves a lot of time if the answer is no.
>
>Please sound off to the list.
>
>The latest version of the charter should be in the archives. (And since
>there hasn't been a lot of discussion of late it should not be hard to
>locate.) If its not, someone should let me know and I'll try to dig it
>up (Roland Hedberg worked on the last revision, so I'll have to paw
>through mail logs to find it as well).
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Chris Apple                     Business Site: AnyWho Directory Service
>Internet Directory Group                       http://www.anywho.com
>AT&T Labs
>[email protected]
>+1 908 582 2409                 Tired of slow directories?  Try AnyWho.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>