Re: LDAP Access Control

[Ellen Stokes <stokes@austin.ibm.com>]

>
>
> QUESTION 1: Do you believe LDAPEXT should be trying to define 
> requirements, framework, and/or a model for access control in 
> LDAP directories? 


Yes.  It is needed for interoperability and
the replication work.


>
> QUESTION 2: Do you basically support the access control 
> requirements draft (draft-ietf-ldapext-acl-reqts-00.txt)?


Yes.

>
>  
>
> QUESTION 3: Do you basically support the access control model 
> draft (draft-ietf-ldapext-acl-model-00.txt)? 


Yes, plus the additions that were requested at the last IETF 
meeting.


>
> QUESTION 4: Do you think we should adopt the X.500(1993) 
> basic access control model as the starting point for the LDAP 
> access control model? 


No.  The X.500 access control model does not meet requirements
as the acl model authors will show shortly.


>
> QUESTION 5: Do you think we should specify only a framework 
> for identifying access control models, and not define a 
> single standards-track model for LDAP at this time? 


No, a framework does not provide for interoperability - it
will only profilerate more acl models.  There must be a
single standard-track model for ldap.