From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 8 05:13:59 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA15677 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 05:13:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h08A8wl17661 for ietf-ldup-bks; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 02:08:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from Mailsweeper.britannia.co.uk (mail.britannia.co.uk [194.223.231.2]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h08A8vo17656 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 02:08:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from florence.britannia-bs.co.uk (unverified) by Mailsweeper.britannia.co.uk (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.10) with ESMTP id for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:06:50 +0000 Received: from flo1.britannia-bs.co.uk ([1.15.2.1]) by florence.britannia-bs.co.uk (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 florence Dec 7 2001 09:58:59) with ESMTP id H8E46J00.J5Q for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:08:43 +0000 Received: from britannia.co.uk ([1.31.1.10]) by flo1.britannia-bs.co.uk (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 flo1 Dec 7 2001 09:58:59) with ESMTP id H8E46J00.QCO for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:08:43 +0000 Message-ID: <3E1BF8BE.606A559@britannia.co.uk> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 10:09:02 +0000 From: "Felix Gaehtgens" Organization: Britannia Building Society X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en]C-BBSPU477v1 (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en-GB MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-ldup@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Chris Apple Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:57 PM To: ietf-ldup@imc.org 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@dsi-consulting.net 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 owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 14 15:55:37 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA11371 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:55:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h0EKqVo06895 for ietf-ldup-bks; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:52:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from tconl91223.tconl.com (tconl91223.tconl.com [204.26.91.223]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0EKqTo06886 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:52:29 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jayhawk@localhost) by tconl91223.tconl.com (8.11.6/8.11.0) id h0EKq5R04386 for ietf-ldup@imc.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:52:05 -0600 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:52:05 -0600 From: Ryan Moats To: ietf-ldup@imc.org Subject: Re: proposal for concluding LDUP Message-ID: <20030114145205.K2248@privateer.local.windrose.omaha.ne.us> Reply-To: rmoats@lemurnetworks.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Count me as agreeing with Felix. Speaking as a directory customer, I have a need for heterogenous replication in my implementations. Ryan Moats From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 14 17:24:54 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13925 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:24:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h0EMM0Q09597 for ietf-ldup-bks; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:22:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from kcmso2.proxy.att.com (kcmso2.att.com [192.128.134.71]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0EMLwo09593 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:21:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from qsun.mt.att.com ([135.16.31.2]) by kcmso2.proxy.att.com (AT&T IPNS/MSO-4.0) with SMTP id h0EMLrx3024269; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:21:53 -0600 (CST) Received: from att.com by qsun.mt.att.com (SMI-8.6/ATTEMS-1.4.1 sol2) id RAA27779; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:21:51 -0500 Message-ID: <3E248D63.CDA5B9F9@att.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:21:23 -0500 From: Richard Huber X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,ru MIME-Version: 1.0 To: capple@dsi-consulting.net CC: ietf-ldup@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP References: <000701c2a9c9$93aa3000$0300a8c0@D7ST2111> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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@dsi-consulting.net > > http://www.dsi-consulting.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org] On > Behalf Of Chris Apple > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:57 PM > To: ietf-ldup@imc.org > 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@dsi-consulting.net > > http://www.dsi-consulting.com From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Tue Jan 14 23:04:37 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA21768 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:04:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h0F42lw18466 for ietf-ldup-bks; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:02:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0F42fo18462 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:02:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from att.com (bgp584225bgs.jdover01.nj.comcast.net [68.39.192.237]) by mtaout07.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.07 (built Nov 25 2002)) with ESMTP id <0H8Q004QELWG08@mtaout07.icomcast.net> for ietf-ldup@imc.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:02:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:02:39 -0500 From: Gerald Maziarski Subject: Re: proposal for concluding LDUP To: ietf-ldup@imc.org Message-id: <3E24DD5F.9030504@att.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130 Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Hi all, I'm one of the authors of the "usage" draft. As an implementor of LDAP solutions within a large enterprise that is LDAP vendor heterogeneous across the business, cross-vendor replication has potential immediate value for me. It's difficult for me to believe that other large enterprises aren't in the same boat. I vote for proposal one. Jerry Maziarski LDAP Architect AT&T Business Systems From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 15 02:46:34 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA18942 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 02:46:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h0F7iKI02538 for ietf-ldup-bks; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:44:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from inet-mail2.oracle.com (inet-mail2.oracle.com [148.87.2.202]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0F7iFo02530 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:44:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from inet-mail2.oracle.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by inet-mail2.oracle.com (Switch-2.2.3/Switch-2.2.3) with ESMTP id h0F7i9s24403 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:44:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from rgmgw4.us.oracle.com (rgmgw4.us.oracle.com [138.1.191.13]) by inet-mail2.oracle.com (Switch-2.2.3/Switch-2.2.3) with ESMTP id h0F7i8H24397 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:44:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from rgmum5.us.oracle.com (rgmum5.us.oracle.com [138.1.191.26]) by rgmgw4.us.oracle.com (Switch-2.1.3/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id h0F7i8n02197 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:44:08 -0700 (MST) Received: from compuserve-ywf-rws-86.us.oracle.com by rgmum3.us.oracle.com with ESMTP id 33908581042616573; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:42:53 -0600 Message-ID: <014801c2bc6a$22a3a360$8ceb1990@acer> From: "Uppili.Srinivasan" To: "Richard Huber" , Cc: References: <000701c2a9c9$93aa3000$0300a8c0@D7ST2111> <3E248D63.CDA5B9F9@att.com> Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:45:22 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris: As for the LDUP mode (architecture) draft, I could work on it to bring it to a consistent state before closing this. I know Ed will not be able to continue on this. Some other LDUP participants have offered to help me close this draft. Thanks, Uppili. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Huber" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 2:21 PM 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@dsi-consulting.net > > > > http://www.dsi-consulting.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org] On > > Behalf Of Chris Apple > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:57 PM > > To: ietf-ldup@imc.org > > 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@dsi-consulting.net > > > > http://www.dsi-consulting.com > > From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 15 06:46:26 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23014 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 06:46:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h0FBcsE29357 for ietf-ldup-bks; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 03:38:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from pretender.boolean.net (root@router.boolean.net [198.144.206.49]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0FBcqo29350 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 03:38:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from hobo.OpenLDAP.org (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pretender.boolean.net (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h0FBbv0a083166; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:38:24 GMT (envelope-from Kurt@OpenLDAP.org) Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030115123532.01f3c8a0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: kurt@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:36:25 +0100 To: Richard Huber From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Cc: capple@dsi-consulting.net, ietf-ldup@imc.org In-Reply-To: <3E248D63.CDA5B9F9@att.com> References: <000701c2a9c9$93aa3000$0300a8c0@D7ST2111> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: At 11:21 PM 1/14/2003, Richard Huber wrote: >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. How does option 1 provide "a standard way to replicate data"? >And I believe we have authors to finish up the work. Good to hear. From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 15 13:46:52 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06367 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:46:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h0FIhEl20681 for ietf-ldup-bks; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:43:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from uxtpaprx1.nam.pwcinternal.com (uxtpaprx1.pwcglobal.com [155.201.16.24]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0FIh9o20676 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:43:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from us-amsmta005.nam.pwcinternal.com (us-amsmta005.nam.pwcinternal.com [10.26.104.89]) by uxtpaprx1.nam.pwcinternal.com (Switch-2.2.1/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id h0FIh0u08896; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:43:01 -0500 (EST) To: capple@dsi-consulting.net Cc: ietf-ldup@imc.org Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: From: christine.yoon@us.pwcglobal.com Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:42:55 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on US-AMSMTA005/US/INTL(Release 5.0.9 |November 16, 2001) at 01/15/2003 01:43:01 PM, Serialize complete at 01/15/2003 01:43:01 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0066A91886256CAF_=" Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0066A91886256CAF_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 Sent by: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org 01/14/2003 04:21 PM To: capple@dsi-consulting.net cc: ietf-ldup@imc.org 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@dsi-consulting.net > > http://www.dsi-consulting.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org] On > Behalf Of Chris Apple > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:57 PM > To: ietf-ldup@imc.org > 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@dsi-consulting.net > > 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. --=_alternative 0066A91886256CAF_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
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 <rvh@att.com>
Sent by: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org
01/14/2003 04:21 PM

       
        To:        capple@dsi-consulting.net
        cc:        ietf-ldup@imc.org
        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@dsi-consulting.net
>
> http://www.dsi-consulting.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org] On
> Behalf Of Chris Apple
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:57 PM
> To: ietf-ldup@imc.org
> 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@dsi-consulting.net
>
> 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. --=_alternative 0066A91886256CAF_=-- From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 15 14:28:15 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07308 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:28:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h0FJMUK21671 for ietf-ldup-bks; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:22:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com (e4.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.104]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0FJMTo21667 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:22:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from northrelay04.pok.ibm.com (northrelay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.206]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h0FJMPOd225208; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:22:25 -0500 Received: from d27ml001.rchland.ibm.com (d27ml001.rchland.ibm.com [9.10.226.52]) by northrelay04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.4) with ESMTP id h0FJMMN4057608; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:22:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" Cc: capple@dsi-consulting.net, ietf-ldup@imc.org, owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org, Richard Huber X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002 Message-ID: From: John McMeeking Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:22:23 -0600 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on d27ml001/27/M/IBM(Build V601_12152002|December 15, 2002) at 01/15/2003 13:22:23 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Just reinforce Kurt's point -- at least I think this was his point: Option 1 does not produce something that vendors will be able to implement and guarantee interoperability. It captures work we have already done, with a bit of clean up and an effort to document known holes/issues. Option 1 and 2 differ in whether this work is done under the umbrella of the working group, or as individual submissions. John McMeeking "Kurt D. Zeilenga" To: Richard Huber Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Sent by: owner-ietf-ldup@m ail.imc.org 01/15/2003 05:36 AM At 11:21 PM 1/14/2003, Richard Huber wrote: >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. How does option 1 provide "a standard way to replicate data"? >And I believe we have authors to finish up the work. Good to hear. From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Wed Jan 15 14:57:28 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA08102 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:57:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h0FJtLk22492 for ietf-ldup-bks; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:55:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from dns.caledonia.net (dns.caledonia.net [207.40.197.238]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0FJtJo22488 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 11:55:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from D7ST2111 (pcp01335500pcs.fairmt01.pa.comcast.net [68.81.172.124]) by dns.caledonia.net; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:54:21 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Chris Apple" To: Subject: RE: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 14:54:29 -0500 Organization: DSI-Consulting, Inc. Message-ID: <004c01c2bccf$edb80ef0$0300a8c0@D7ST2111> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id h0FJtLo22489 Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Two points that I have heard from WG participants verbally, but which I've yet to see expressed on the mailing list by those participants are as follows: 1) Even if a document is experimental rather than standards track, that's closer to having an interoperable "standard" than we have today. So if we have at least a set of informational and experimental documents, there are at least a few references to point towards in RFPs/RFIs and other such methods of assessing Directory Services solutions from various vendors. 2) Given the interdependence of various LDUP documents, it is more likely that the documents will progress as a *useful* set if they are worked on within the context of a working group (option 1). The rationale given for this comment was that one or more individual contributions (option 2) could "drop off the face of the earth" and the community would be left with the remainder of the set, This would have the effect of making the remaining documents less complete and therefore less useful. In fact, some otherwise publishable documents could even become unpublishable due to the disappearance of a referenced document. This could result in more work to resolve the effects of the disappearing document on the other specs, resulting in even more delay in getting them published. So there is a cascading effect built into the documents through references that we'd be better off, even if they are experimental rather than standards track, if there were either all of the documents or none of the documents. I want to be clear that those comments didn't originate from either myself or John Strassner as either WG participants or co-chairs; but I did want to make the rest of the WG aware of our consideration as co-chairs of these comments along with the others posted to the list. I also would like to note that as a co-chair, while I clearly see the relevance of point 2 above to this discussion, I think there could be some exceptions to the cascading effect that it points out. Whether the combination of any such exceptions prove to produce a useful set of specifications in the event of the demise of other specs as individual contributions is a topic worth discussing. Chris Apple - Principal Architect DSI Consulting, Inc. mailto:capple@dsi-consulting.net http://www.dsi-consulting.com -----Original Message----- From: John McMeeking [mailto:jmcmeek@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:22 PM To: Kurt D. Zeilenga Cc: capple@dsi-consulting.net; ietf-ldup@imc.org; owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org; Richard Huber Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Just reinforce Kurt's point -- at least I think this was his point: Option 1 does not produce something that vendors will be able to implement and guarantee interoperability. It captures work we have already done, with a bit of clean up and an effort to document known holes/issues. Option 1 and 2 differ in whether this work is done under the umbrella of the working group, or as individual submissions. John McMeeking "Kurt D. Zeilenga" To: Richard Huber Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Sent by: owner-ietf-ldup@m ail.imc.org 01/15/2003 05:36 AM At 11:21 PM 1/14/2003, Richard Huber wrote: >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. How does option 1 provide "a standard way to replicate data"? >And I believe we have authors to finish up the work. Good to hear. From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Thu Jan 16 15:13:16 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA22783 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:13:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h0GK9PU08800 for ietf-ldup-bks; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:09:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from triplerock.olsons.net (root@adsl-63-194-211-87.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.194.211.87]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0GK9Oo08796 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:09:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from sleepycat.com (12-234-118-3.client.attbi.com [12.234.118.3]) (authenticated) by triplerock.olsons.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0GK9BW96435 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher DES-CBC3-SHA (168 bits) verified NO); Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:09:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from merrells@sleepycat.com) Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:09:14 -0800 Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "Richard Huber" , , To: "Uppili.Srinivasan" From: John Merrells In-Reply-To: <014801c2bc6a$22a3a360$8ceb1990@acer> Message-Id: <62B5D5C8-298E-11D7-8D8D-000A95770846@sleepycat.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday, January 14, 2003, at 11:45 PM, Uppili.Srinivasan wrote: > > Chris: > > As for the LDUP mode (architecture) draft, I could work on it to bring > it to > a consistent state before closing this. I know Ed will not be able to > continue on this. Some other LDUP participants have offered to help me > close this draft. > I'm also willing to help get the documents finished up, but I'm quite out of touch with what's been going on beyond the mailing list activity. John From owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Fri Jan 24 19:13:50 2003 Received: from above.proper.com (mail.proper.com [208.184.76.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA06032 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:13:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) id h0P029I04346 for ietf-ldup-bks; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:02:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from dns.caledonia.net (dns.caledonia.net [207.40.197.238]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0P027o04341 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:02:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from D7ST2111 (pool-151-204-212-42.pskn.east.verizon.net [151.204.212.42]) by dns.caledonia.net; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 17:01:02 -0700 Reply-To: From: "Chris Apple" To: Subject: RE: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:01:18 -0500 Organization: DSI-Consulting, Inc. Message-ID: <001801c2c404$e3859150$0300a8c0@D7ST2111> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 In-Reply-To: <004c01c2bccf$edb80ef0$0300a8c0@D7ST2111> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by above.proper.com id h0P028o04343 Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-ID: List-Unsubscribe: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks to those who posted on this thread. John and I will post our interpretation of consensus based on those postings, including the posting made by myself on behalf of folks who chose to weigh in verbally with me directly rather than posting to the list. Chris Apple - Principal Architect DSI Consulting, Inc. mailto:capple@dsi-consulting.net http://www.dsi-consulting.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Chris Apple Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:54 PM To: ietf-ldup@imc.org Subject: RE: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Two points that I have heard from WG participants verbally, but which I've yet to see expressed on the mailing list by those participants are as follows: 1) Even if a document is experimental rather than standards track, that's closer to having an interoperable "standard" than we have today. So if we have at least a set of informational and experimental documents, there are at least a few references to point towards in RFPs/RFIs and other such methods of assessing Directory Services solutions from various vendors. 2) Given the interdependence of various LDUP documents, it is more likely that the documents will progress as a *useful* set if they are worked on within the context of a working group (option 1). The rationale given for this comment was that one or more individual contributions (option 2) could "drop off the face of the earth" and the community would be left with the remainder of the set, This would have the effect of making the remaining documents less complete and therefore less useful. In fact, some otherwise publishable documents could even become unpublishable due to the disappearance of a referenced document. This could result in more work to resolve the effects of the disappearing document on the other specs, resulting in even more delay in getting them published. So there is a cascading effect built into the documents through references that we'd be better off, even if they are experimental rather than standards track, if there were either all of the documents or none of the documents. I want to be clear that those comments didn't originate from either myself or John Strassner as either WG participants or co-chairs; but I did want to make the rest of the WG aware of our consideration as co-chairs of these comments along with the others posted to the list. I also would like to note that as a co-chair, while I clearly see the relevance of point 2 above to this discussion, I think there could be some exceptions to the cascading effect that it points out. Whether the combination of any such exceptions prove to produce a useful set of specifications in the event of the demise of other specs as individual contributions is a topic worth discussing. Chris Apple - Principal Architect DSI Consulting, Inc. mailto:capple@dsi-consulting.net http://www.dsi-consulting.com -----Original Message----- From: John McMeeking [mailto:jmcmeek@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 2:22 PM To: Kurt D. Zeilenga Cc: capple@dsi-consulting.net; ietf-ldup@imc.org; owner-ietf-ldup@mail.imc.org; Richard Huber Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Just reinforce Kurt's point -- at least I think this was his point: Option 1 does not produce something that vendors will be able to implement and guarantee interoperability. It captures work we have already done, with a bit of clean up and an effort to document known holes/issues. Option 1 and 2 differ in whether this work is done under the umbrella of the working group, or as individual submissions. John McMeeking "Kurt D. Zeilenga" To: Richard Huber Subject: Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP Sent by: owner-ietf-ldup@m ail.imc.org 01/15/2003 05:36 AM At 11:21 PM 1/14/2003, Richard Huber wrote: >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. How does option 1 provide "a standard way to replicate data"? >And I believe we have authors to finish up the work. Good to hear.