Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP

From: "Felix Gaehtgens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 10:09:02 +0000

Hi!

I'm actually for proposal 1. I don't believe that this will distract so
much from the LCUP effort, and I believe that what was created is
important enough to justify not only in keeping it, but making another
effort at trying to find consensus.

Let's not forget that LDUP, if it materialises in whichever form, could
be considered as one of the "best thing invented since sliced bread" in
the Directory world.

I cannot see why it would be distracting from LCUP. If we need more
people, let's see where we can get some more volunteers to take on/over
work.

- Felix

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
Behalf Of Chris Apple
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:57 PM
To: [email-masked]
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:[email-masked]

http://www.dsi-consulting.com

Visit our website at http://www.britannia.co.uk

This Email and any attachments contains confidential information and is intended
solely for the individual to whom it is addressed. If this Email has been 
misdirected, please notify the author as soon as possible. If you are not
the intended recipient you must not disclose, distribute, copy, print or 
rely on any of the information contained, and all copies must be deleted 
immediately.
Whilst we take reasonable steps to try to identify any software viruses, 
any attachments to this e-mail may nevertheless contain viruses which our 
anti-virus software has failed to identify. You should therefore carry out 
your own anti-virus checks before opening any documents. Britannia Building
Society will not accept any liability for damage caused by computer viruses 
emanating from any attachment or other document supplied with this e-mail.
Britannia Building Society reserves the right to monitor and archive all 
e-mail communications through its network. No representative or employee 
of Britannia Building Society has the authority to enter into any contract 
on behalf of Britannia Building Society by email.
Britannia Building Society is a member of the General Insurance Standards Council.
Britannia Building Society is regulated by the Financial Services Authority
and advises on and sells the life assurance, pension and unit trust products 
provided  only by the Britannic marketing group.
Britannia Building Society, Britannia House, Leek, Staffs, ST13 5RG.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:42:55 -0600

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.

Christine Yoon
Security Integration
PricewaterhouseCoopers
(201)981-1172 (cell)
(732)706-3559

Richard Huber <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
01/14/2003 04:21 PM

        To:     [email-masked]
        cc:     [email-masked]
        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.
>
On
> 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.