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

[Jeff.Hodges@stanford.edu]

rlmorgan@washington.edu said:
> 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. 

Yep.

> 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.  

Yep.

There's quite a few substantial mods to the docs in the queue in terms of how 
the different facets of LDAP are addressed in which RFCs, plus there are 
various "bug fixes" and enhancements in the pipeline for the protocol itself 
that'd arguably call for bumping the version number (v3.x or v4 or whatever).

So we feel that, as Bob is essentially saying, it makes sense to tie-up the 
outstanding loose ends of explicitly defining LDAPv3 as we presently know it 
and rescind the IESG Note.

We can be moving ahead in parallel with deciding whether we take LDAPv3 (as 
defined by the AS) to Draft (and what that means in terms of what needs to be 
fixed and/or enhanced (or not)), or whether we want/need to begin sketching 
out LDAPv3bis (as Kurt put it) as the follow-on to LDAPv3, or we want/need to 
do something in between or a combination of the two.

But let's get these present two loose ends crisply resolved.

thanks,

JeffH