[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Revised WG Charter Proposal



Kurt,

there are many different WGs that use "REVISE" as well as many different
WGs that use "WG Last Call". Furthermore, this wording is consistent with
current practice.

I do agree with your suggested change to the last milestone.

regards,
John

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-ldup@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ietf-ldup@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 10:25 PM
To: Christopher Apple
Cc: 'ietf-ldup@xxxxxxx'; John Strassner (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Revised WG Charter Proposal



I suggest striking all the "REVISE" milestones... and
replacing all "WG Last Call" milestones with "Recommend
to the IESG for consideration as a ...".   From past
experience, each document has multiple WG Last Calls...
it's successfully completely the WG Last Call and
progressing the I-D that counts.

And I suggest the last milestone be:
        Revise charter or conclude
as "Re-evaluate Charter and Milestones" doesn't sound like
much of a commitment to successfully conclude.

At 12:30 PM 2001-11-05, Christopher Apple wrote:
>Based on input from document editors and a little editing from me,
>please review the following. The open review period of this begins
>today, Monday, November 5, 2001 and will last for 7 days.
>
>The review period therefore ends on Monday, November 12, 2001.
>
>Silence equals consent. This will be sent to the ADs for review
>subject to incorporation of comments sent, discussed, and
>vetted on the WG mailing list shortly after November 12, 2001.
>
>LDAP Duplication/Replication/Update Protocols (ldup)
>
>Last Modified: 05-Nov-01
>
>Chair(s):
>
>Chris Apple <christopher.apple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>John Strassner <john.strassner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Applications Area Director(s):
>
>Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Patrik Faltstrom <paf@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>Applications Area Advisor:
>
>Patrik Faltstrom <paf@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>Mailing Lists:
>
>General Discussion:ietf-ldup@xxxxxxx
>To Subscribe: ietf-ldup-request@xxxxxxx
>In Body: subscribe
>Archive: http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/
>
>Description of Working Group:
>
>As LDAPv3 becomes more widely deployed, replication of data across
>servers running different implementations becomes an important part
>of providing a distributed directory service. However, the LDAPv3
>community, to date, has focused on standardizing the client-server
>access protocol. Therefore, this group will standardize master-slave
>and multi-master LDAPv3 replication as defined below:
>
>o Multi-Master Replication - A replication model where entries can
>  be written and updated on any of several replica copies, without
>  requiring communication with other masters before the write or
>  update is performed.
>
>o Master-Slave, or Single-Master Replication - A replication model
>  that assumes only one server, the master, allows write access to
>  the replicated data. Note that Master-Slave replication can be
>  considered a proper subset of multi-master replication.
>
>The WG's approach is to first develop a set of requirements for
>LDAPv3 directory replication and write an applicability statement
>defining scenarios on which replication requirements are based.
>An engineering team was formed consisting of different vendors
>and the co-chairs in order to harmonize the existing approaches
>into a single standard approach. All of these have been accomplished
>during the pre-working group stage. It should be noted, however,
>that replication using heterogeneous servers is dependent on
>resolving access control issues, which are the domain of other
>working groups. Should these issues not be resolved outside of
>the LDUP WG in a timely manner relative to the WG's needs, the
>WG will be re-chartered subject to Applications AD/IESG approval
>to include the minimum required work.
>
>The new replication architecture support all forms of replication
>mentioned above. Seven areas of working group focus have been
>identified through LDUP Engineering Team discussions, each leading
>to one or more Engineering Team discussions, each leading to one
>or more documents to be published:
>
>o LDAPv3 Replication Architecture
>
>   This documents a general-purpose LDAPv3 replication architecture,
>   defines key components of this architecture, describes how these
>   key components functionally behave, and describes how these
>   components interact with each other when in various modes of
>   operation.
>
>o LDAPv3 Replication Information Model
>
>   Defines the schema and semantics of information used to operate,
>   administer, maintain, and provision replication between LDAPv3
>   servers. Specifically, this document will contain common schema
>   specifications intended to facilitate interoperable
>   implementations with respect to:
>
>      + replication agreements
>
>      + consistency models
>
>      + replication topologies
>
>      + managing deleted objects and their states
>
>      + administration and management
>
>o LDAPv3 Replication Information Transport Protocol
>
>   LDAPv3 extended operation and control specifications required to
>   allow LDAPv3 to be used as the transport protocol for information
>   being replicated
>
>o LDAPv3 Mandatory Replica Management
>
>   Specifications required to allow administration, maintenance, and
>   provisioning of replicas and replication agreements. These
>   specifications may take the form of definitions for LDAPv3
>   extended operations, controls, and/or new schema elements.
>
>o LDAPv3 Update Reconciliation Procedures
>
>   Procedures for detection and resolution of conflicts between the
>   state of multiple replicas that contain information from the same
>   unit of replication.
>
>o LDAPv3 Replication Usage Profile
>
>   Including the LDAPv3 Replication Architecture, Information Model,
>   Protocol Extensions, and Update Reconciliation Procedures for:
>
>      + LDAPv3 Master-Slave Directory Replication
>
>      + LDAPv3 Multi-Master Directory Replication
>
>o LDAPv3 Client Update
>
>   A protocol that enables an LDAP client to synchronize with the
>   content of a directory information tree (DIT) stored by an LDAP
>   server and to be notified about the changes to that content.
>
>The work being done in the LDUP WG should be coordinated to the
>closest extent possible with similar work being done in the ITU.
>This is necessary both because LDAP depends on X.500 and because
>it makes sense from an operational perspective.
>
>
>Goals and Milestones:
>
>Done    Submit I-D on LDAPv3 Directory Replication Requirements.
>
>Done    Submit Internet-Draft on LDAPv3 Replication Information Model.
>
>Done    Submit I-D on LDAPv3 Update Reconciliation Procedures.
>
>Done    Revise I-D on LDAPv3 Directory Replication Requirements.
>
>Done    Revise I-D on LDAPv3 Replication Architecture.
>
>Done    Revise I-D on LDAPv3 Replication Architecture.
>
>Done    Revise I-D on LDAPv3 Replication Information Model.
>
>Done    Submit I-D on LDAPv3 Replication Information Transport Protocol.
>
>
>Done    LDAPv3 Directory Replication Requirements I-D goes to WG Last
>Call as Informational.
>
>Done    Submit I-D on LDAPv3 Mandatory Replica Management.
>
>Done    Submit I-D on General LDUP Usage Profile.
>
>Done    Submit I-D on LDAPv3 Operations Framing.
>
>Oct 01  I-D on LDAPv3 Extended Operations for Framing goes to WG Last
>Call as Proposed Standard.
>
>Nov 01  Submit I-D on LDAPv3 Replication Information Transport Protocol.
>
>
>Nov 01  Revise I-D on General LDUP Usage Profile.
>
>Nov 01  Revise I-D on LDAPv3 Mandatory Replica Management.
>
>Dec 01  LDAPv3 Client Update Protocol I-D goes to WG Last Call as
>Proposed Standard.
>
>Feb 02  LDAPv3 Replication Architecture I-D goes to WG Last Call as
>Informational.
>
>Mar 02  LDAPv3 Update Reconciliation Procedures I-D goes to WG Last Call
>as Proposed Standard.
>
>Mar 02  LDAPv3 Mandatory Replica Management I-D goes to WG Last Call as
>Proposed Standard.
>
>Mar 02  LDAPv3 Replication Information Model I-D goes to WG Last Call as
>Proposed Standard.
>
>Mar 02  LDAPv3 Replication Information Transport Protocol I-D goes to WG
>Last Call as Proposed Standard.
>
>Mar 02  Re-evaluate Charter and Milestones.
>
>Chris Apple
>Program Manager - Integration Services
>United Messaging Inc.
><http://www.unitedmessaging.com>
><mailto:christopher.apple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>(V) +1 610 425 2860
>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature