Subject: LDUP Engineering Group on Access Control

From: "Timothy Hahn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:28:51 -0500

Hello all,

The LDUP WG minutes remind us that an engineering group needs to be 
established to come up with a proposal for creating some "minimum 
interoperable access control" such that Secure replication can be 
established across multiple independent implementations.

I don't recall a set of people assigned/volunteered for such a an 
engineering group yet.  Have they been?  If so, can the group re-identify 
itself to the list?  If not, I'll volunteer to be one member of the group 
- are there any other victims/volunteers?

Thanks in advance,
Tim Hahn

Internet: [email-masked]
Internal: Timothy Hahn/Endicott/IBM@IBMUS or IBMUSM00(HAHNT)
phone: 607.752.6388     tie-line: 8/852.6388
fax: 607.752.3681

---

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:22:32 -0600

Thanks to Tim and Steven for pointing this out. The text for item 9 on
the agenda
was missing/cut-off somehow.
 
Its included in place below.

Chris Apple

[email-masked] 

Meeting Minutes

LDAP Duplication/Replication/Update Protocols WG (ldup)

Thursday, December 13 at 1530-1730 
===================================

CHAIRS: Chris Apple <[email-masked]>
 John Strassner <[email-masked]>

0) Agenda Bashing

No changes were made to the agenda.

1) LDUP Update Reconciliation Procedures

     <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-urp-05.txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-urp-05.txt

A new version was issued several weeks prior to the WG Meeting.

Specific changes to the document are listed at the end of the draft.
Some editorial changes were made. Other changes to be made in a future
document revision will include the addition of other reference
documents.

2) LDAPv3 Replication Requirements

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-10.txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-10.txt

This document has passed WG Last Call. Comments recently posted to the
list
after the conclusion of the WG Last Call period will be handled as a
part
of IETF Last Call. Co-Chairs have an action item to follow up with the
Applications Area ADs to find out when the document will be included in
the
IESG queue for consideration.

3) LDAP Replication Architecture

     <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-model-06.txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-model-06.txt

A requirements coverage matrix has been posted to the WG mailing list.
This posting indicates that the architecture model document lags other
WG documents somewhat and needs to be revised. Some requirements are
defined
in the requirements document that the architecture document doesn't
address.
Requirements related to state-based systems are not covered. Log-based
replication requirements are not adequately addressed.

It was pointed out by Ed Reed that this requirements coverage matrix
will also help to identify holes in information model document.

4) LDUP Replication Information Model

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-04.txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-04.txt

A new revision was submitted shortly before the IETF meeting deadline.
No comments on this document revision had been posted to the list as of
the WG meeting date. Slides were presented covering the changes made to
the document. These slides have been posted to the WG mailing list.

5) LDAP Subentry Schema

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-subentry-08.txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-subentry-08.txt

Discussion via e-mail between the document editors and Kurt Zeilenga
have led to
WG consensus that the original proposal in this document should not be
used. An
individual alternative was published by Kurt Zeilenga. The document will
be
considered by the WG as a proposal on the list. The X.500 committee has
agreed
to consider changes to the X.500 subentry specification to foster
compatibility
between LDAP and X.500 provided that we publish rationale and
requirements for
their consideration. There was some discussion about adoption of the
individual
proposal from Kurt Zeilenga as a WG deliverable that would replace the
existing
WG deliverable. This discussion was deferred until such time as the next
WG Charter
revision proposal is posted to the WG mailing list.

6) The LDUP Replication Update Protocol

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-protocol-03.txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-protocol-03.txt

A revision was submitted shortly before the IETF meeting deadline.
Several
changes were made since the -02 version. These changes are documented in
slides
that were posted to the WG mailing list. It is likely that this document
will
need to be revised at least once more prior to considering WG Last Call.

7) General Usage Profile for LDAPv3 Replication

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-usage-profile-02.tx
t>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-usage-profile-02.txt

The document editors were unable to attend the WG meeting but submitted
a
slide to the Co-Chairs for presentation at the meeting. This slide was
posted
to the mailing list. It is likely that this document will need to be
revised
again after several other WG documents have been revised.

8) LDAP Client Update Protocol

     <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-lcup-02.txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-lcup-02.txt

Based on mailing list discussion, this document is close to being ready
for WG Last Call.
The changes made to the document since the -01 revision are included in
the document.
There is one major issue that requires more mailing list discussion. The
issue is
whether or not a discovery mechanism enabling client/server
implementations to
determine what cookie schemes are supported may be overkill. There was
some general
agreement in the room that this might indeed be overkill and that it
should be discussed
on the WG mailing list. Once this issue is resolved by the WG, the
document should be
ready for WG Last Call.

9) Profile for Framing LDAPv3 Operations

<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-framing-profile-00.
txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-framing-profile-00.t
xt

There was discussion about the possibility of relaxing the framing
constraints
on LDAPv3 operations in the context of LDUP. Appropriate text from this
document
should be included in a revised grouping document. The Co-Chair
requested
that this topic be aired on the list a bit more as there were concerns
about having a WG document subsumed by a non-WG document without
adopting the
subsequent document as a WG deliverable. This topic will be discussed
further
once a post-Salt Lake City WG charter proposal is posted to the list.

10) Mandatory LDAP Replica Management

       <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-mrm-00.txt>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-mrm-00.txt

This document was published by the editors as a very rough draft. The
Co-Chairs
encouraged members of the WG to review this document with this in mind.

Kurt Zeilenga asked if the word mandatory in the title carried its
traditional
weight as it does when included in requirements language in the body of
a document.
The general answer given by the Co-Chairs was "not quite" but agreed
that the
WG should consider an alternate title for the document to clear up
confusion if
it indeed shouldn't carry its traditional weight.

11) LDAPv3 Access Control - Options to Consider

 a) Adding it to LDUP?
 b) Forming a WG Solely to Address Access Control for LDAPv3?
 c) Handling the Access Control problem by (potentially competing)
           individual contributions?
        d) Do nothing and let the work go on outside of the IETF?
 e) Other options?

Discussion about this topic indicates that it is generally accepted that
LDUP will not have 

successfully concluded if it publishes deliverables which do not support
and actively address 

interoperable, secure replication of information between LDAP servers.
Room belief is that it 

belongs in a WG.The pending conclusion of the LDAPEXT WG prior to
completion of the LDAP Access 

Control Model work creates an issue that the LDUP WG needs to resolve.
When the questions above 

were posed to the WG members in attendance, they clearly expressed a
belief that a general LDAP 

Access Control model should not become an LDUP deliverable. However,
there was also a strong 

belief among those in attendance that such work does belong in a working
group.

After much discussion of possible paths to successful WG conclusion, it
was proposed that 

concensus on an access control model applicable only within the context
of LDUP
specifications might be achieved by using X.500 basic or a profile
thereof - or some
even simpler proposal.

An Engineering Team needs to be convened to draft a list of the
minimally required factors 

needed in an access control model for LDUP.

It was pointed out by Kurt Zeilenga that identity to authentication
credential mapping will 

have to be addressed by any access control model for LDUP
implementations to use it 

effectively.

12) Broader WG Charter Discussion

The most recent WG Charter proposal posted to the WG mailing list will
be revised to
remove present wording related to LDUP adoption of the LDAPEXT Access
Control Model work.
This charter content and associated deliverables will be replaced with
content consistent
with the discussion that took place during the WG meeting.