|
I agree in general to these statements. The next question from me to Bob then, is can I go ahead and merge draft-rharrison-ldap-intermediate-resp into [Protocol]?
Jim >>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org> 12/12/03 12:22:02 PM >>> At 07:17 PM 12/7/2003, Jim Sermersheim wrote: >Since [Protocol] will be recycled, do we want to roll in some of the recent additions? Well, I'd like answer this question with the "recycled" part. The key here is that we're 'revising' the LDAP TS, not 'redesigning' it (except in limited areas such as string preparation). The fact that we will be recycling doesn't change this. So, the question, to me is "can we consider recent IESG-approved updates to the existing TS as part of the "core" specification?" The short answer to this is, "yes". However, as co-chair, I am reluctant to "roll in" updates requiring significant amounts of work. We need to wrap things up. However, given the nature of my involvement in these RFC-to-be documents, I'll defer all further chair responsibilities in this matter to Bob. The following is my personal opinion as to what should or shouldn't be rolled in: draft-rharrison-ldap-intermediate-resp - yes As this adds an extension mechanism to the underlying protocol and it desirable to include it in [Protocol] so that it will more likely that LDAP libraries and such will add support for it. I think it can easily be rolled into [Protocol]. draft-zeilenga-ldap-features - yes This adds an important discovery capability to LDAP and can easily rolled into [Models]. draft-zeilenga-ldap-user-schema-mr - (mostly) yes This document includes the "missing" from the LDAP TS. Many of them should find there way into [Syntaxes]. Work here is minimal. draft-zeilenga-ldap-opattrs - no I view this as an independent extension (not an update to the core TS) and hence suggest that it remain separately specified (so that it can be progressed separately). draft-zeilenga-ldap-subentry - no Too much work to 'roll in'. Just reference it as needed. draft-z! eilenga- ldap-collective - no Too much work to 'roll in'. Just reference it as needed. The other recently approved LDAP documents (component matching, LCUP, etc.) are, I believe, clearly independent (from the "core") extensions and hence should not be rolled in. Additionally, I think the following existing things I would like to see rolled in (and can easily be rolled in): structuralObjectClass from X.5xx into [Models]. governingStructureRule from X.5xx into [Models]. dcObject from RFC 2247 into [Schema]. uidObject from RFC 2377 into [Schema]. Kurt |