Re: Fwd: Re: draft-ietf-ldapbis-protocol - controls

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 01:00 PM 4/15/2005, Howard Chu wrote:
>Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>>I don't. What I'm saying is there was a message from Howard which seemed to me to raise these two issues (a and b). Relaxing what "appropriate" means doesn't address either of these issues. Maybe I'm wrong and the only issue raised was that we want "appropriate for the operation" to mean more than specified as appropriate for the operation by the control spec. No response is needed though, I'm too tired of this issue to argue anymore, no one else is concerned. I'll make the change.
>
>Since the Last Call just went out for draft 30, I just wanted to check the status of this change.

There are a number of issues, including the above, raised
since we progressed -30 which will need to be addressed prior
to publication as an RFC.   I'll ask Jim to post a summary
of changes he thinks are supported by WG consensus for
brief discussions, then I'll revise the summary based on
those discussions and forward it to the IESG.   Individuals
are, of course, free to comment separately (before and/or
after) I forward the summary to the IESG.

Kurt, as LDAPBIS co-chair