Re: LDAP C API -> Informational

[mcs@netscape.com (Mark C Smith)]

Mark Wahl wrote:
> 
> Since (1) some of issues have been sent directly to the document authors, (2)
> the opinions of the authors may or may not have changed in the last few
> weeks, (3) perhaps not all of the authors have been involved in offline
> discussions, and (4) the opinions of the authors are not known to the working
> group as a whole, I propose the following procedure be used to provide an
> opportunity for the authors as a group to ensure that they have a consistent
> opinion on the issues you have raised, and then to provide this as a basis for
> discussion in the working group as a whole.
> 
> Kurt and the document authors (Anoop Anantha, Andy Herron, Tim Howes, Mark
> Smith, Mark Wahl) should meet as a group, either by email or teleconference,
> and review Kurt's issues list. (I want to hold that discussion privately off
> of ietf-ldapext so that the participants can feel free to have exploratory or
> hypothetical discussions without these being misinterpreted as statements of
> intended direction.)  As a result of this meeting, this group will send a
> single email to ietf-ldapext that outlines the issues raised by Kurt, and for
> each issue, the view of the document authors on how it should be resolved.
> 
> The working group will then have this as a basis to decide how to complete
> the last call.

I think this is a good suggestion.  My own view is that the problems
with the current draft are solvable in a reasonably short period of
time, but I also am pragmatic and if consensus turns towards publication
as Informational that is okay with me too.  I suggest we start with a
teleconference.  Should I arrange that for sometime the first week of
January?

-- 
Mark Smith
iPlanet Directory Architect / Sun-Netscape Alliance
My words are my own, not my employer's.   Got LDAP?