The other authors and I are currently reviewing what we hope to propose as LCUP draft version 04. I believe we have addressed the issues brought up during Last Call.In my opinion that there is not energy left in the WG to complete LDUP on any track. Also, I feel there is little consumer interest in LDUP to justify further IETF work in this area. So, not only do I not support option 1), I do not support leaving any LDUP deliverables on our charter. Instead, I suggest that individuals pursue publication of the portions they feel are worthy (e.g., URP). While the WG can review this work, but I prefer the WG no longer be responsible for seeing such documents through. I also believe the WG should not attempt to review any LDAP Admin Model nor LDAP Access Control documents. Instead, it should refer any such request for review to the LDAPEXT list. With respect to LCUP, as I noted at IETF#55, we're not at the end of the LCUP engineering process but somewhere in the middle. We still got some significant issues to reach closure on.
A WG may aide in seeing LCUP through. I am a bit concerned that the LCUP effort is seems also to struggling a bit, but I believe there is a reasonable level of interest (both within our community as well as our consumers) in LCUP. I think the key to this being successful as a WG effort is narrowing the WG's focus to LCUP standardization and having our chairs, with the help from the ADs, keep this effort on a very short leash. Hence, I support option 2 with a couple of caveats. I) LCUP be the only WG deliverable Ia) resolve major outstanding issues by IETF#56 Ib) progress documents by IETF#57 II) allow review of LDUP I-D produced by individuals (as long as these reviews does not slow LCUP progress) Kurt At 12:56 PM 12/12/2002, Chris Apple wrote:As mentioned in the proposed WG meeting minutes, there are currently two proposals on the table for concluding LDUP: 1) A proposal from the co-chairs. Summarized as follows: A) Publish LCUP spec as Proposed Standard after successful passage of a WG Last Call. B) Publish remaining WG documents as either Informational or Experimental after resolving gross inconsistencies and explicitly identifying areas where the WG was unable to achieve consensus in those documents. C) Reference X.500 BAC in the General Usage Profile as well as the X.500 Administrative Model (perhaps from the drafts by Steven L. and Kurt Z., perhaps directly from the X.500 Recommendations themselves) D) Reference X.500 BAC and Administrative Model in other WG documents as needed. E) Documents should enter WG Last Call on or before the July 2003 IETF Meeting. F) Conclude LDUP when last document is published as an RFC. 2) A proposal from Mark Wahl. Summarized as follows: A) Publish LCUP as a Proposed Standard after successful passage of WG Last Call. B) Conclude LDUP once LCUP spec is published as an RFC. C) Convert all WG documents to individual I-D contributions and allow editors to work out consensus (or not) outside of the context of a WG. I have spoke with a number of folks who have opinions about the pros and cons of either approach. Please post your views to the list on the pros and cons of these approaches and indicate which way you are leaning at this time. Also please feel free to post your observations about any inaccuracies in the summaries of the proposals above. Chris Apple - Principal Architect DSI Consulting, Inc. mailto:capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.dsi-consulting.com
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature