RE: Status of LDIF and Changelog?

["Griffith, Adrian, CON, OASD(HA)/TMA" <Adrian.Griffith@tma.osd.mil>]

agreed

> ----------
> From: 	Tim Howes[SMTP:howes@netscape.com]
> Sent: 	Sunday, November 15, 1998 10:51 PM
> To: 	Mark Wahl
> Cc: 	d.w.chadwick@iti.salford.ac.uk; Gordon Good; Sanjay Jain; Pete
> Lynch; Griffith, Adrian, CON, OASD(HA)/TMA; Helmut Volpers; 'Russel F.
> Weiser'; Richardson K; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: 	Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
> 
> 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.
> 
>