RE: moving access control discussion to LDUP

["Matt Hirsch" <mhirsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,


Typing on a government machine, I agree with Chris Apple.  We need to
continue development of the AC draft.  In my mind this document should
serve as the foundation for establishing security in managing,
controlling access to, and replicating information in the LDAP world.
It is obvious that LDAP is the directory access protocol of choice (at
least today and most likely for the next few years).  The Government, in
it's continuing drive to remain vendor independent and in compliance
with commercial standards, is extremely interested in continuing to
develop the Access Control LDAP standards and will most likely be able
to contribute to the furtherance of this early next year with the award
of a rather large contract that is geared towards standards development.

My vote (speaking for the NSA V51) is that we continue to develop the
Access Control Model for LDAP V3 in either the LDUP WG or in a revived
LDAP EXT WG tiger team and finish the draft to a RFC state.  At this
point, it could be turned over to the LDUP WG.

Regards,
Matt Hirsch

A&N Associates Inc.
Management & Technology Consulting
410-772-5060 ext 22 


-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 6:15 PM
To: john.strassner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Christopher Apple; 'Rob Byrne - Sun Microsystems'; Mark Wahl;
roland@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf-ldup@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: moving access control discussion to LDUP



At 02:05 PM 2001-11-14, John Strassner wrote:
>So how will the protocol be able to interoperate without a common ACM?

At the level of interoperability this WG is attempting to achieve,
it cannot.  But then, this WG will needs much more than a common
ACM to provide the level of interoperability it is attempting to
achieve.

IMO, the WG as bitten off more that it can chew and bitting off
more will only cause the WG to choke.

So, I wonder, what is beyond scope of this working group?

Kurt