Re: Applicability Stmt (AS) rescinding "IESG Note" and defining "LDAPv3"

["RL 'Bob' Morgan" <rlmorgan@washington.edu>]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, David Chadwick wrote:

> I would like to suggest that we do not have an applicability statement
> as you are suggesting but rather that we re-issue the base RFC with
> bug fixes and omissions that various people have pointed out over the
> years. I believe that Mark Wahl is keeping a note of these. For your
> convenience, I reproduce below text from my PKIX ID that is profiling
> the use of LDAPv3 for PKIs.  You will see that there are various
> omissions in the base LDAPv3 documents that need to be fixed, and I
> would like to see the RFCs re-issued with the extra text inserted into
> them, rather than publishing your ID that simply removes the notes.
> What do others think?

Well, if the effort required to produce 2251-2256 is set at 10, I'd say
the effort to issue followups to them is a 5, and we're hoping the effort
required to get this applicability statement out the door and officially
remove the IESG warning is a 1.  I agree that doing revised versions of
the base docs is A Good Thing To Do, but even deciding whether to recycle
them at Proposed or move to Draft is likely to be contentious.  I believe
this was briefly discussed in Adelaide and the WG chair indicated that he
thought that doing revised versions should come after completing the
existing work items, including access control, which themselves will take
a while.

 - RL "Bob"