RE: Status of LDIF and Changelog?

[Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Good [mailto:ggood@netscape.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 9:47 AM
> To: Pete Lynch
> Cc: Griffith, Adrian, CON, OASD(HA)/TMA; Helmut Volpers; 'Russel F.
> Weiser'; Richardson K; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
> 
> 
> The timing of this thread is good!
> 
> The plan I have, as document author, is to move the current 
> LDIF draft forward
> as a proposed standard. I apologize for not getting this done 
> sooner, but other
> things have gotten in the way. Here are some things to think about:
> 
> - Is proposed standard the way to go?  I think so. Having 
> LDIF on standards
> track doesn't preclude other formats (like an XML DTD for 
> directory entries)
> coming into existence. Instead, it's an acknoweledgement that many
> implementations already support LDIF, and will help ensure 
> interoperability
> among implementations that choose to support LDIF.

Fine. But see below.

> 
> - What about the LDIF extensions draft
> (http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-andersen-isss-ws
> -dir-ldifext-00.txt)
> that Erik Andersen has written? 

My preference is that extensions should be done on the XML path. One can't
logically simulataneously justify an LDIF standard by saying that one is
_only_ codifying existing practice, and then turn around and propose
extensions.

Paul