Subject: LDUP WG Meeting Minutes

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 11:24:59 -0400

0) Agenda Bashing

No additions or changes were made to the agenda.
 
1) LDAPv3 Replication Requirements

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-11.txt

This version represents the WG's first attempt to address IESG feedback
and comment. Some list discussion has taken place and appears to be
circling in on consensus relative to language to address IESG comments.
There are also some off-list discussions that are being resolved with
the assistance of the Applications ADs. We expect that this document
will be ready to re-submit to the IESG for consideration for publication
as an Informational RFC by mid-April.

2) LDAP Client Update Protocol

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

As of the last WG meeting there were believed to be small,
non-contentious
issues to be resolved with the document. It became obvious during this
WG
meeting that there may be a larger number of issues to discuss on the
list that previously anticipated based on the number of people who have
actually commented on it. Therefore, more list discussion and a revision
of the document are expected. Despite this expectation, this document is
Still considered to be one of the next documents we will be delivering
to
the IESG for consideration for publication as an RFC, in this case, as
a standards-track document.

3) LDUP Update Reconciliation Procedures

   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-urp-06.txt

Changes were made to the document based on list discussion. The slides
used
during the meeting by the document editor show the details - these
slides
will be submitted for inclusion in the Proceedings as well as to the WG
mailing list. There are still some issues to resolve relative to
synchronizing
this document with the content of the LDAP Replication Architecture
document.

4) LDAP Replication Architecture

   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-model-07.txt

This revision resulted from a major overhaul of the prior version to
bring
its content into convergence with other WG documents and list
discussion.
Specific changes are documented in slides used by the document editor
presenting at the WG meeting. These slides will be submitted for the
IETF proceedings and also will be posted to the WG mailing list. When
the question about this document being ready for WG Last Call was
raised,
the room generally indicated that more time on the mailing list would be
appropriate. One particular issue on which the architecture document is
dependent is the selection or specification of an administrative model
for replication by the WG.

5) LDUP Replication Information Model

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

This document is in a holding pattern, so to speak. The issue of
selecting an
administrative model for replication should be resolved before its
revised.

6) LDAP Subentry Schema

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

This document has been withdrawn from WG consideration. A similar WG
deliverable may or may not be needed depending on WG consensus relative
to the selection or specification of an administrative model for
replication. The question was raised about the X.500 administrative
model being sufficient for the needs of LDAPv3 replication. This
particular way of resolving the administrative model issue will be
considered by the WG along with other options

7) The LDUP Replication Update Protocol

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

Not revised prior to the WG meeting. It is expected to enter WG Last
Call
along with the URP document. A revision of this document may be needed
once the URP document is believed to be stable enough to enter WG Last
Call.

8) General Usage Profile for LDAPv3 Replication

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-usage-profile-02.txt
 
Not revised prior to the WG meeting. This document is expected to be the
last
to mature of all WG documents because it is a profile of how to make use
of
all other specifications.

9) Profile for Framing LDAPv3 Operations

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

Not revised prior to the WG meeting. This document has the same
issue/dependency as the LDAP Subentry Schema and the LDAP Replication
Information Model documents. an administrative model needs to be
selected
or specified by the WG before there is any utility in either revising it
or adopting one or more individual contributions to take its place.

10) Mandatory LDAP Replica Management

    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-mrm-01.txt

This document has been significantly fleshed out since the last WG
meeting.
There are issues flagged in the document which are known to need WG
discussion to stabilize the document's content. The specific issues are
documented in slides presented during the WG meeting. These slides will
be submitted for inclusion in the IETF proceedings as well as be posted
to the WG mailing list.

11) LDUP Access Control Design Team

The co-chair present at the WG meeting presented a status report on the
recently formed LDUP Access Control Design Team. Specifically, a terse
mission statement and proposed team work plan was presented to the WG.
There were some concerns expressed about the lack of any obvious status
reports into the WG being included explicitly in the work plan. There
were
also concerns raised about how far the proposed work plan goes down the
path
of allowing for the possibility of the current design team members
actually
creating specifications for access control in the context of LDAPv3
replication.
A third area of concern was not having the design team membership
included
in the document presented during the WG meeting. The co-chair agreed to
do the
following to help alleviate these concerns:

	i) revise the design team's work plan to include explicit status
         reports and inputs to the WG
	ii) add a list of design team member names with e-mail addresses
          to the work plan
	iii) post the resulting document to the WG mailing list for
           further discussion

12) WG Charter Bashing

The room consensus was that the WG charter needs to be revised to
address:

	+ actual versus anticipated publication of revisions to WG
documents
	+ the formation of the LDUP Access Control Design Team
	+ the current dependency of the WG charter on the Access Control
        deliverables of the soon-to-conclude LDAPEXT WG
	+ the LDAPv3 framing/grouping concept
	+ an administrative model for replication
	+ replication-relevant access control input from the
        LDUP Access Control Design Team

During this discussion topic, the WG room was polled for likelihood of
attendance by WG participants and document editors of an LDUP meeting
in Japan. Only one document editor raised their hand indicating that
they were planning to be at the next IETF meeting in Japan. Therefore,
unless list consensus indicates that there is value in scheduling
a session at the next IETF meeting, the LDUP WG will defer meeting
until the Fall IETF meeting in Atlanta, GA.

Chris Apple

[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 15:22:21 -0500

>        iii) post the resulting document to the WG mailing list for

I noted that the LDUP WG is not yet chartered to do engineering work
in the area of LDAP Access Controls and, hence, the WG's design team
must limit its work (until such time a charter revision is approved)
to making a recommendation on how to revise the charter.

>The room consensus was that the WG charter needs to be revised to

While I believe there is consensus that the LDUP WG charter
needs to revised, I do not believe there is any consensus
as to how the charter should be revised.  In particular, I
do not believe there is yet consensus on which items should
or should not be added/modified/removed.  No specific charter
revision was proposed or discussed at the meeting.

---

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:13:53 -0400

As-a-Co-Chair:

Your clarification is appreciated. However, for the purposes of the
meeting minutes,
I believe that the present text is generic enough to cover this and the
other
types (those not motivated by present charter scope) of motivations that
were
expressed for the same types of concerns.

"There were also concerns raised about how far the proposed work plan
goes 
down the path of allowing for the possibility of the current design team
members actually creating specifications for access control in the
context
of LDAPv3 replication."

There were some folks who didn't feel that it was appropriate based on
simply
not knowing what it was the team would produce at a detailed level in
the earlier
Stages (those that pre-date stages which would involve writing specs on
the
topic that is out of scope). This represents a different motivating
factor than
your concern over how the present charter scope was or was not applied
to the
proposed work plan for the design team. The minutes were getting long
enough
and I didn't want to start adding more volume to them by documenting
specific
positions held by specific individuals.

In regards to the details of your clarification, I assert that the
design team
is not required to bound its efforts by the current or any other version
of the
WG charter. Admittedly, if its members do work which the WG doesn't
believe that
it could eventually find to be useful, time and effort are being wasted
- but even
that won't impact the WG significantly because the WG doesn't have to
consider in
detail any input that it doesn't believe is within the scope of its
current charter.
I also don't think there is any harm done to have the work plan be as
is, with its
many exit points based on WG consensus, prior to any real access control
work being
done by either the design team or the WG. If WG consensus is to not
undertake or
even attempt to reference access control specifications, it will surely
tell the
design team not to proceed further; then John and I would declare the
design team
as concluded. If the members of the design team decide to proceed
regardless
(which I doubt would happen), as co-chairs, John and I would be required
to make
statements prohibiting on-list discussion of any associated outputs from
the design
team. Given that scenario, I'm having trouble understanding what harm
you are trying
to prevent by raising the concern based on charter scope applicability
to the design
team's tentative work plan.

Not-as-a-Co-Chair:

With that said, WG consensus could be that it is uncomfortable with the
design
team's work plan extending so far into unknown territory, regardless of
the
lack of harm that doing so represents.

As-a-Co-Chair:

Also, because your particular motivation of concern to be squarely a
process issue,
please advise me if you believe that I am missing knowledge of
documented IETF
process which states that design teams can't be formed to work on topics
on which
a WG is dependent, but which currently fall out of the present scope of
the WG charter.
As a part of this advice, please provide as specific a reference as
possible from IETF
process documentation. Then, John and I can consider whether or not we
have the same
interpretation of that referenced text as you do.

Chris Apple

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 4:22 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; John Strassner
Subject: Re: LDUP WG Meeting Minutes

>were also concerns raised about how far the proposed work plan goes 
>down the path

I noted that the LDUP WG is not yet chartered to do engineering work in
the area of LDAP Access Controls and, hence, the WG's design team must
limit its work (until such time a charter revision is approved) to
making a recommendation on how to revise the charter.

>The room consensus was that the WG charter needs to be revised to

While I believe there is consensus that the LDUP WG charter needs to
revised, I do not believe there is any consensus as to how the charter
should be revised.  In particular, I do not believe there is yet
consensus on which items should or should not be added/modified/removed.
No specific charter revision was proposed or discussed at the meeting.

---

From: "Chris Apple" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:34:49 -0400

>        LDUP Access Control Design Team

Room consensus doesn't mean that any decisions have been made by the WG.
To me,
this term only means that there was a hum of agreement that something
needed to
be included in a proposed charter revision for the WG to consider. Even
if such
additions, deletions, and/or modifications aren't actually accepted by
the WG
(because WG consensus can shift during discussions), the charter
revision that
actually is accepted by the WG will have addressed those issues by
either
including or excluding them. If included, the WG is addressing the issue
by
explicitly making some statement about them - that it either will or
will not
produce deliverables related to the resolving the issue. If excluded,
the WG
is making an implicit statement about them - that they are out of scope.

The meeting minutes didn't attempt to state that a specific revision was
available
for review because none was required to discuss the WG Charter. The
agenda item
title signifies that the WG Charter would be discussed. Without other
qualifications,
the term "WG Charter" means the *current* WG Charter which requires no
written
proposal to the WG because its available online at the IETF web site.

Therefore, I don't believe that the meeting minutes need to change to
reflect
room consensus during the meeting.

Chris.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:18:53 -0700

My point is that the room consensus that the items be considered
by the WG does not imply that the room had consensus on whether
any of the items should be added or not to the charter.   That is,
IMO, the consensus was for the chairs to make a specific proposal
to the WG to consider.

Kurt

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:49:05 -0700

My concern is that that WG appears to be doing work in an area
which it is not chartered to work in.  A design team is a sub-group
of the WG.  It would be inappropriate for a WG to use design teams
to circumvent its charter.

I would be far more comfortable if the LDUP's LDAP ACM design team's
mission was to just to produce a charter text for the WG to consider.

Kurt