Are you saying that its a bad spec, but we should unify under it anyway? Bad specs for an API mean that code written to it isn't portable, has implementation dependencies, doesn't work well in error conditions, and all round just sucks.
Fooey.
If the highest priority is really the need to let LDAPEXT conclude, then we should just drop the work item from the charter.
Paul
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 1999 12:25 PM
> To: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: LDAP C API -> Informational
>
>
> Tim, Mark:
>
> I ask that the working group consider progressing the LDAP C API
> draft as Informational.
>
> I do not believe that the current LDAP C API specification can
> easily be amended to resolve the numerous technical issues
> (error handling, referral handling, security) raised to the
> authors privately or in the working group. I believe significant
> time (over a year) and energy will be required to produce an API
> specification worthy of being progressed on the Standard Track.
>
> However, the community needs a specification to unify under.
> I believe that an Informational RFC can, as demonstrated by
> RFC 1823, serve the community's immediate need for unification.
> I believe the current draft could be published as Informational
> without significant delay.
>
> I would support formation of a new WG specifically chartered
> to develop API specifications for LDAP such that LDAPext may
> conclude as scheduled.
>
> Kurt
>