Re: Agenda items?

Al,
	Thanks for the pointer to the compound attributes draft.  I'll
certainly send a note to the author pointing him to the conneg work,
but I will need to think some more about where the problem spaces do
and don't overlap.  My current take is that the author believes that
some attributes in the LDAP context are, in fact, compounds but are
being treated as strings; the author would like to create a method for
formally specifying the compounds so that more complex matching
algorithms can be supplied.  The "Postal Address" example given is
very telling, as requirements on specific elements within the compound
would be useful (there must be a "country" element for a "Postal
Address" compound to be valid).  Once you get to the point of wanting
to apply a constraint on the country element within the compound, it
becomes obvious that there is some overlap with conneg, but that seems
to me to be a little beside the point of the document.  
			regards,
				Ted



PS.  The URL of the relevant draft, for those who missed it, is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vmodi-ldapext-compound-attr-00.txt



> 
> At 02:54 PM 10/8/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >Hi,
> >	Please send proposed agenda items for the next IETF to me or
> >to the list by Friday, October 15th.  I currently plan to spend time
> >discussing the new aggregate feature draft and coordination between
> >CONNEG and the CC/PP working group in the W3C.
> >				regards,
> >					Ted Hardie
> >					Chair
> >
> 
> I recently saw announcement of a new document dealing with structured
> attributes in LDAP.  Are these people aware of the protocol-independent
> framework you are working on and cooperating?  Or is there a genuine reason
> these should not be coordinated?
> 
> In a sense these are rhetorical questions in that I don't mean you need to
> answer me but answer yourself and if the answer is not cut and dried this
> might be something to talk about at the face-to-face.
> 
> Al 
>