[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: LDAP Access Control
No, I don't. But sometimes these things happen! ;-) Sorry...
(But one of the beauties of HTML is that you can still make
out the content if you squint. :)) -- Tim
Kurt Spanier wrote:
> 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
>
> ----------==========##########>>>>>@<<<<<##########==========----------