[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: Using DAP to support dynamic directories
> From: Yoram Yaacovi <yoramy@MICROSOFT.com>
> To: "'Tim Howes'" <howes@netscape.com>
> Cc: "'D.W.Chadwick@iti.salford.ac.uk'" <D.W.Chadwick@iti.salford.ac.uk>,
> osidirectory@az05.bull.com, ietf-asid@netscape.com,
> "'ldapext'" <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>
> Subject: RE: Using DAP to support dynamic directories
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:10:02 -0800
> I'd go with either option, but my personal preference would be a separate
> document. This way we can get the dynamic entries draft out NOW. We can add
> text in section 5.3 that will point to this future doc.
>
If you must have, and manage to get, the last call out this week,
then I prefer a separate document for the DAP work. The reason for
this, is that the ISO/ITU-T X.500 group are meeting NEXT week, and I
would like their comments before the text is included in a last call.
I think it would be premature to issue a last call on text that I
have written and that no-one else from the X.500 group has reviewed.
If however, you are willing to wait another week or so, in order to
get feedback from the X.500 group, that I can take on board and make
the necessary changes (if any), then it would make sense to have the
DAP work included in the current document, and to issue the last call
in a fortnight for the combined protocols document.
I leave it up to you to choose
David
> Yoram
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Howes [SMTP:howes@netscape.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 2:56 PM
> To: Yoram Yaacovi
> Cc: 'D.W.Chadwick@iti.salford.ac.uk';
> osidirectory@az05.bull.com; ietf-asid@netscape.com; 'ldapext'
> Subject: Re: Using DAP to support dynamic directories
>
> My opinion is that this document has been hanging around
> on the verge of standardization for too long and needs to go
> forward without further delay. In fact, I was planning to
> issue the last call by the end of the week.
>
> Now, we can take this as a last-call comment and incorporate
> the change, or we can defer it to a separate document. It
> doesn't much matter to me which of those things happens.
> To take the former approach, we have to agree that the
> changes are not substantial enough to warrant more discussion
> and another last call. To take the latter approach, we just
> need to convince ourselves that it makes sense.
>
> Any opinions? -- Tim
***************************************************
David Chadwick
IT Institute, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT
Tel +44 161 295 5351 Fax +44 161 745 8169
Mobile +44 370 957 287
Email D.W.Chadwick@iti.salford.ac.uk
Home Page http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/chadwick.htm
Understanding X.500 http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/X500.htm
X.500/LDAP Seminars http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/seminars.htm
***************************************************