I am also in favor of option 1.
Many users have multi-vendor ldap environment that cannot replicate to each other.
A standard way of replicating data will be definitely helpful to users.
Richard Huber <rvh@xxxxxxx> Sent by: owner-ietf-ldup@xxxxxxxxxxxx
01/14/2003 04:21 PM
To: capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc: ietf-ldup@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP
I'm in favor of option 1. As noted by Felix and Ryan, a standard way of
replicating data would be very helpful to many users. And I believe we have
authors to finish up the work.
Rick Huber
Chris Apple wrote:
> Thanks to those who have posted comments so far on this topic.
>
> In the interest of moving forward and recognizing that this is
> a time of year when many of us are spending more time with family
> and friends than reading IETF mailing lists, lets keep the
> commenting window on this thread open until January 15, 2003.
>
> If you've not done so already, please post your reactions,
> comments, etc. on this topic to the list by that date. Then
> John and I will try to make some judgment call on consensus.
>
> I make this second request for comments because I know from
> speaking with several folks at the last IETF that there are
> perspectives which have not been expressed on the list so far.
>
> One thing that seems fairly clear at this point in time though,
> is that the work towards standardizing LCUP has sufficient
> momentum and value to keep it going regardless of how the
> concluding LDUP thread is resolved.
>
> Chris Apple - Principal Architect
>
> DSI Consulting, Inc.
>
> mailto:capple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> http://www.dsi-consulting.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-ldup@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-ldup@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Chris Apple
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:57 PM
> To: ietf-ldup@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Proposals for Concluding LDUP
>
> 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
_________________________________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
from any computer.