Access Control Design Team Work Program

["Chris Apple" <capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Text file attached. Please review and post comments to the LDUP WG
mailing list or
send directly to John Strassner or myself.

Also note that despite e-mail address change,
christopher.apple@xxxxxxxxxxx
ends up in my mail client as well - so if you get bounced mail, try
sending to
the old one as a second choice. Should be taken care of on the WG
Charter page
soon.

Chris Apple

Principal Architect
DSI Consulting, Inc.

mailto: capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.dsi-consulting.com

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Apple;Chris;;;(E-mail)
FN:Chris Apple (capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
ORG:DSI Consulting, Inc.
TITLE:Principal Architect
TEL;WORK;VOICE:(610) 585-4241
TEL;HOME;VOICE:(215) 873-0850
TEL;CELL;VOICE:(610) 585-4241
ADR;WORK:;;214 New Street #4-N;Philadelphia;PA;19106;United States of America
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:214 New Street #4-N=0D=0APhiladelphia, PA 19106=0D=0AUnited States of Americ=
a
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
REV:20020611T221647Z
END:VCARD

LDUP Access Control Design Team

Members

James Benedict	james.benedict@xxxxxxxxxx
Tim Hahn	hahnt@xxxxxxxxxx
Matt Hirsch	mhirsch@xxxxxxxxxxx
Rick Huber	rvh@xxxxxxx
Steven Legg	steven.legg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ed Reed		eer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


Mission Statement

The Design Team will make access control recommendations
and proposals for the LDUP Working Group to consider.

Work Program

The Design Team's Work Program shall be for the Design Team
to provide input for consideration by the WG according to
a schedule of work items defined below. The Design Team shall
provide input to the WG after the completion of work items
1, 2, 5, and, if the Design Team has not been dissolved, 7.


06/2002	1) This mission statement/work plan.

07/2002	2) Descriptions of the minimal set of access control
	   problems that need to be solved and RFC 2820 requirements
	   that need to be addressed to enable interoperable
	   LDAP replication.

07/2002	3) Documentation of one or more work programs consisting of
	   a set of milestones/deliverables with brief descriptions
	   of content likely to be contained in an initial set of draft(s)
	   that would enable an IETF WG to produce standards track
	   technical specifications which addresses the minimal set
	   of access control problems defined in 2).


07/2002	4) Documentation of one or more proposals corresponding to the
	   work programs described above documenting non-IETF approaches
 	   at solving the minimal set of access control problems in 2).

08/2002	5) A matrix documenting pros and cons associated with each work
	   program or proposal documented in 3) and 4).


09/2002	6) The WG will discusses the proposals and the pros/cons and will
	   attempt to achieve consensus around one of the proposals from the
	   Design Team. If, after an appropriate amount of discussion time
	   on the list, the Co-Chairs are able to judge that consensus
	   will not be achieved on any of the proposals generated by the
	   the Design Team, the Co-Chairs will dissolve the Design Team
	   and this Work Program ends.

10/2002	7) If the WG achieves concensus on one of the proposals documented 	   in 3) (or a modified version of one of those proposals), the WG
	   may also request that the Co-Chairs inform the Design Team to
	   create and publish one or more I-Ds.

	   If the WG decides not to request that the Design Team produce
	   the documents, the Design Team will dissolve, this Work Program
	   will end, and the Co-Chairs will consider the matter of Access
	   Control for LDUP closed. 
           
	   If the WG decides to request that the Design Team produce
           one or more documents based on one of the proposals
           documented in 3) above, then the Co-Chairs will draft a
           charter revision proposal including the required work items
	   associated with the proposal accepted by the WG.

11/2002 8) The Design Team dissolves when one of the following happens:

		a) The WG accepts the I-Ds published by the Design Team
		   as a basis for standardization (this doesn't preclude
		   successive discourse about details but it does mean
		   that there is no longer a need for the Editors of 
                   those I-Ds to exclusively hold discussions about the
                   documents off-list).

		b) The WG rejects the I-Ds published by the Design Team
		   as a basis for standardization.   

		c) The WG is unable to achieve consensus on any proposal
		   documented by the design team.

		d) The WG achieves consensus that one of the proposals
		   documented in 4) is the best way to proceed.