[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Access Control document
- To: "M.Pohlman" <coradon@ix.netcom.com>
- Subject: Re: Access Control document
- From: Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 07:50:39 +0000
- Cc: Alan Lloyd <Alan.Lloyd@OpenDirectory.com.au>, ietf-ldapext@netscape.com, ietf-asid@netscape.com, Frank@netscape.com, alexis.bor@directoryworks.com, howes@netscape.com, aschwarz@uoknor.edu, jliedel@ford.com
- Content-id: <14765.887183438.1@isode.com>
- Delivered-to: ldapext-archive@critical-angle.com
- In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:37:00 -0600. <199802101737.LAA07186@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com>
- Resent-date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 23:52:33 -0800 (PST)
- Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
- Resent-message-id: <"oRjXK1.0.iA6.0ZLuq"@glacier>
- Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com
Marlin,
This information would definitely be interesting.
I also think that a more directed study to anser the question "does
X.500 access control meet the requirements of the WG paper on access
control requirements" would also be useful still.
Steve