Proposed LDUP WG Meeting Minutes

Please post comments and corrections to the list. The meeting minutes are
due on December 16th to the secretariat. Therefore, we can only accept
comments and corrections posted to the mailing list prior to
1700 US Eastern Time.

LDUP WG Meeting Minutes
November 20, 2002

We initiated a chat conference with remote attendees using
the facilities provided.

Roger G. Harrison volunteered to take notes for the meeting
minutes.

The co-chair in attendance, Chris Apple, spoke on behalf of
remote attendees and displayed the chat conference room window
on the overhead screen while doing so.

Some WG members in the meeting room were also in the chat
conference room and made comments there in response to
comments from remote attendees.

We reviewed the agenda and there were no changes requested.

Chris Apple gave a brief overview of current WG deliverables
status. The requirements document has been published as an RFC
LCUP's WG last call concluded and a substantial number of
issues were raised. The document editors, the remote WG
attendees in this case, are working to resolve the issues.

(unknown)

subscribe

**************************Disclaimer************************************

Information contained in this E-MAIL being proprietary to Wipro Limited is 
'privileged' and 'confidential' and intended for use only by the individual
 or entity to which it is addressed. You are notified that any use, copying 
or dissemination of the information contained in the E-MAIL in any manner 
whatsoever is strictly prohibited.

***************************************************************************

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:

Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP

A) I agree with finishing work on LCUP as a proposed standard.

B) With respect to the replication work, I agree that it seems highly
unlikely that the working group will be able to reach consensus, and that
even if published, that many directory server vendors would attempt to
support it.  I suspect too much work has been done on each vendor's
replication implementations for them to invest in new replication support.
Personally, I would hate to see the existing replication work lost.  I
would like to see it archived in some form along with a list of known
issues.  An experimental or informational RFC seems to be the way to do
this within IETF, but I'd go for anything that preserved the work without
too much pain.

I am willing to contribute to such an effort, as long as it is a small,
contained effort with enough participation to keep any individual
contribution to a reasonable level.  A July 2003 cutoff date for this work
seems reasonable.  If we can't do it by then, we're probably not going to
get it done.

With respect to this being done as a WG or as individual submisisons, I
don't think it matters much.  It is going to require a group effort (not
necessarily WG) to wrap this up, and the individuals woud be drawn from the
LDUP WG.  The WG might even be able to acheive consensus on issues (we
don't have to solve, just record it).  I think it would be helpful
(motivational) if the WG agreed that there was value in preserving the
work.  If the WG wants to pursue this, great.  If not, and there's enough
interest to do an "individual" submission, that's fine.  Otherwise, its
clearly time to drop the matter.

Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP

In my opinion that there is not energy left in the WG to complete
LDUP on any track.  Also, I feel there is little consumer interest
in LDUP to justify further IETF work in this area.  So, not only
do I not support option 1), I do not support leaving any LDUP
deliverables on our charter.  Instead, I suggest that individuals
pursue publication of the portions they feel are worthy (e.g., URP).
While the WG can review this work, but I prefer the WG no longer
be responsible for seeing such documents through.  I also believe
the WG should not attempt to review any LDAP Admin Model nor
LDAP Access Control documents.  Instead, it should refer any
such request for review to the LDAPEXT list.

With respect to LCUP, as I noted at IETF#55, we're not at the end
of the LCUP engineering process but somewhere in the middle.  We
still got some significant issues to reach closure on.  A WG may
aide in seeing LCUP through.  I am a bit concerned that the LCUP
effort is seems also to struggling a bit, but I believe there is a
reasonable level of interest (both within our community as well
as our consumers) in LCUP.  I think the key to this being successful
as a WG effort is narrowing the WG's focus to LCUP standardization
and having our chairs, with the help from the ADs, keep this
effort on a very short leash.

Hence, I support option 2 with a couple of caveats.
  I) LCUP be the only WG deliverable
    Ia) resolve major outstanding issues by IETF#56
    Ib) progress documents by IETF#57
  II) allow review of LDUP I-D produced by individuals
     (as long as these reviews does not slow LCUP progress)

Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP

Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP

Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
 >
> With respect to LCUP, as I noted at IETF#55, we're not at the end
> of the LCUP engineering process but somewhere in the middle.

I think the middle is a large area but we are closer to the end of the 
middle than the beginning of the middle 

 > We still got some significant issues to reach closure on.  A WG may
> aide in seeing LCUP through.  I am a bit concerned that the LCUP
> effort is seems also to struggling a bit, but I believe there is a
> reasonable level of interest (both within our community as well
> as our consumers) in LCUP.  I think the key to this being successful
> as a WG effort is narrowing the WG's focus to LCUP standardization
> and having our chairs, with the help from the ADs, keep this
> effort on a very short leash.
> 
> Hence, I support option 2 with a couple of caveats.
>   I) LCUP be the only WG deliverable
>     Ia) resolve major outstanding issues by IETF#56
>     Ib) progress documents by IETF#57
>   II) allow review of LDUP I-D produced by individuals
>      (as long as these reviews does not slow LCUP progress)

I don't think the LCUP effort is "struggling" much if at all, but I 
agree that it will be helpful to keep LDUP alive long enough to complete 
the LCUP work.

-Mark Smith
  Netscape

Re: Proposals for Concluding LDUP

At 05:37 PM 12/19/2002, Mark C Smith wrote:
>I don't think the LCUP effort is "struggling" much if at all 

While I am convinced that the authors are reasonable
committed to completing LCUP in a timely manner, I've
had concerns that the rest of the WG (including myself)
really isn't engaged in the engineering of LCUP.
Specifically, I am afraid that a charter that allows
significant distraction (LDUP, Admin Models, ACMs)
from the LCUP standardization effort will lead us
nowhere.

Kurt 

RE: Proposals for Concluding LDUP

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 <at> dsi-consulting.net

http://www.dsi-consulting.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-ldup <at> mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-ldup <at> mail.imc.org] On
Behalf Of Chris Apple
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:57 PM
To: ietf-ldup <at> 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 <at> dsi-consulting.net

http://www.dsi-consulting.com