[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
- To: d.w.chadwick@iti.salford.ac.uk
- Subject: Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
- From: Mark Wahl <M.Wahl@INNOSOFT.COM>
- Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:14:06 -0600
- Cc: Gordon Good <ggood@netscape.com>, Sanjay.Jain@software.com (Sanjay Jain), Pete Lynch <pete@jyra.com>, "Griffith, Adrian, CON, OASD(HA)/TMA" <Adrian.Griffith@tma.osd.mil>, Helmut Volpers <Helmut.Volpers@mch.sni.de>, "'Russel F. Weiser'" <rweiser@digsigtrust.com>, Richardson K <k.richardson@MAN05T1.wins.icl.co.uk>, ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
- In-reply-to: "Your message of Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:19:36 GMT." <199811141921.TAA15895@irwell.zetnet.co.uk>
- Resent-date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 16:15:19 -0800 (PST)
- Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
- Resent-message-id: <"6sSaI2.0.774.LqXJs"@glacier>
- Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com
> I would prefer both it and the LDIF texts to be informational RFCs (although I
> accept that LDIF is widely used) until access controls are sorted out.
While I agree it is useful to develop an access control standard for LDAP
directory servers, there appears to be value to the user community of LDIF
becoming a standards-track document at present. Assuming access control
information would be expressible as attributes of directory entries, then LDIF
would be able to carry the access control information when it is defined.
Mark Wahl, Directory Product Architect
Innosoft International, Inc.