[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Applicability Stmt (AS) rescinding "IESG Note" and defining "LDAPv3"
> 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.
But the value of revised RFCs is an order of magnitude more than a
removed warning. Therefore we should concentrate on the higher
goal if we can and not be deflected by relative trivia.
David
>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"
>
>
>
***************************************************
David Chadwick
IS Institute, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT
Tel +44 161 295 5351 Fax +44 161 745 8169
Mobile +44 790 167 0359
Email D.W.Chadwick@salford.ac.uk
Home Page http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/chadwick.htm
Understanding X.500 http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/X500.htm
X.500/LDAP Seminars http://www.salford.ac.uk/its024/seminars.htm
Entrust key validation string MLJ9-DU5T-HV8J
***************************************************