Comments below.... Chris Apple Program Manager - Directory Services United Messaging Inc. <http://www.unitedmessaging.com> <mailto:christopher.apple@unitedmessaging.com> (V) 610-425-2860 >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Sermersheim [mailto:JIMSE@novell.com] >Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 12:42 PM >To: ietf-ldup@imc.org; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com; eer@OnCallDBA.COM >Subject: Re: Subentries decision - internet draft withdrawn > > >Hmm, I wonder how many other drafts refer to it. I know the >password policy draft does. Here's the list I've found, please post any missing I-D URLs to the list if you know of them: http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reed-ldup-inheritance-00.tx t (indirectly) http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-03.txt http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-behera-ldap-password-policy -04.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldapext-acl-model-08.txt > >I forsee a whole bunch of 'special' auxilliary >objectclasses being defined that carry subtree policy semantics. That's the idea... Chris. > >>>> "Ed Reed" <eer@OnCallDBA.COM> 08/13/01 08:04AM >>> > >Hello, all - > >At the IETF in London the working group chairs of the LDUP >and (late) LDUPEXT working groups considered the issues >raised surrounding the LDAP Subentries draft I've been >working on. Their decision, as related to me, was to ask >that the LDUP information model be revised so that object >classes defined there for ReplicaSubentry and >ReplicaAgreementSubentry no longer are treated as >subentries, and that the work on the LDAP Subentries as a >standards track document be ended. > >So, the draft is hereby withdrawn from work group consideration. > >The basis of the decision was that since the Access Control >editors have decided not to use LDAP Subentries in their >document, and since they were the only other charter-item >document in the works that might have referenced the >document, there appears to be insufficient interest in >generalizing a variant from the X.500 version of >Subentries to be worth continuing in the working group. >There is a strongly felt (and forcefully expressed) feeling >among several folks in the working group that there is no >reason to "dummy down" the X.500 Subentry specification. >So we won't. > >Thank you all for your patience in this matter... > >Ed > >================= >Ed Reed >Reed-Matthews, Inc. >+1 801 796 7065 >http://www.Reed-Matthews.COM > >
BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:Apple;Chris FN:Chris Apple (E-mail) ORG:UMI TITLE:Program Manager TEL;WORK;VOICE:(610) 425-2860 TEL;HOME;VOICE:(215) 873-0850 TEL;CELL;VOICE:(610) 585-4241 TEL;WORK;FAX:(610) 425-6501 ADR;WORK:;;1161 McDermott Drive;West Chester;Pa.;19380;United States of America LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:1161 McDermott Drive=0D=0AWest Chester, Pa. 19380=0D=0AUnited States of Amer= ica EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:christopher.apple@unitedmessaging.com REV:20010621T205341Z END:VCARD
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature