[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
- To: Mark Wahl <M.Wahl@INNOSOFT.COM>
- Subject: Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
- From: Tim Howes <howes@netscape.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 19:51:21 -0800
- Cc: d.w.chadwick@iti.salford.ac.uk, Gordon Good <ggood@netscape.com>, Sanjay Jain <Sanjay.Jain@software.com>, 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
- References: <24911.911088846@threadgill.austin.innosoft.com>
- Resent-date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:09:24 -0800 (PST)
- Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
- Resent-message-id: <"_p3jt.0.DI1.2n5Ks"@glacier>
- Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com
Agreed. LDIF should go forward, as should work on
standard access control. But linking these two
things would make no sense. -- Tim
Mark Wahl wrote:
>
> > 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.