[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: LDAP Access Control
Hi Tim,
do you think, it's a good idea to send mails in HTML format only, so that
people still using 'good old' mail readers cannot see directly what you
say...
Regards, Kurt
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Tim Howes wrote:
> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 19:08:55 -0700
> From: Tim Howes <howes@netscape.com>
> To: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: LDAP Access Control
> Resent-Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
> Resent-From: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
>
> <HTML>
> Hi all. It appears to Mark and me, your LDAPEXT co-chairs,
> <BR>that the ACL discussions have broken down and are no longer
> <BR>producing anything constructive. This message is our attempt
> <BR>to put things back on track. To do this effectively, we need
> <BR>your help and participation. Please read this message
> <BR>carefully and respond to the questions posed.
>
> <P>We are not taking a vote, we are simply trying to gauge the
> <BR>consensus in the group. There have been several vocal views
> <BR>expressed, and we need to determine which ones (if any!) have
> <BR>the support of the group. If this looks like rehashing of
> <BR>old ground, please bear with us one more time. Please note
> <BR>that the reply-to on this message points to Mark and me. If
> <BR>you would like to reply to the whole list, please feel free
> <BR>to do so.
>
> <P>QUESTION 1: Do you believe LDAPEXT should be trying to define
> <BR>requirements, framework, and/or a model for access control in
> <BR>LDAP directories?
>
> <P>QUESTION 2: Do you basically support the access control
> <BR>requirements draft (draft-ietf-ldapext-acl-reqts-00.txt)?
>
> <P>QUESTION 3: Do you basically support the access control model
> <BR>draft (draft-ietf-ldapext-acl-model-00.txt)?
>
> <P>QUESTION 4: Do you think we should adopt the X.500(1993)
> <BR>basic access control model as the starting point for the LDAP
> <BR>access control model?
>
> <P>QUESTION 5: Do you think we should specify only a framework
> <BR>for identifying access control models, and not define a
> <BR>single standards-track model for LDAP at this time?
>
> <P>Please let us know what you think. If nobody responds to
> <BR>these questions, we'll assume that you support the direction
> <BR>stated in the charter and worked on in the group so far,
> <BR>which is to define an LDAP access control model, and to
> <BR>support the requirements and proposed model drafts.
>
> <P>Tim Howes and Mark Wahl
> <BR> </HTML>
>
----------==========#########>>>>>ZDV<<<<<#########==========----------
X.500: Tel.:
Kurt Spanier, Zentrum fuer Datenverarbeitung, +49 7071 29-70334
Universitaet Tuebingen, DE
SMTP-Mail: FAX.:
kurt.spanier@zdv.uni-tuebingen.de +49 7071 29-5912
Snail-Mail:
Dr. Kurt Spanier, Zentrum fuer Datenverarbeitung,
Universitaet Tuebingen, Waechterstrasse 76, D-72074 Tuebingen
PGP-Public-Key:
finger "Kurt Spanier"@x500.uni-tuebingen.de
----------==========##########>>>>>@<<<<<##########==========----------