[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: [ldapext] VLV: a particular target entry

On Friday 27 September 2002 15:07, Mark C Smith wrote:
> John McMeeking wrote:
> > I agree with Kurt that positioning by DN would be useful, and it seems
> > simple to implement.
> > ...
>
> The real question in my mind is whether additional features like this
> should be added to the VLV protocol now. I say no, it is too late: the
> current VLV specification has been extensively reviewed and has been
> held up on a minor issue for about 2 years now. Let's publish it as a
> Proposed Standard and move on. Extensions to VLV or a VLV2 can of course
> be pursued by anyone with time and interest.

I totally agreee with this. 
This workinggroup will not make a complete remake of VLV. Anyone wanting
to do so should seriously consider forming a new working group.
If there is not consensus within this group to continue with the VLV draft 
with only minor modifications, I would propose that the group drops it and 
let the authors publish it as an individual contribution.

Please bear in mind that this group is no more, it's just formally around 
since all its drafts aren't through to RFC status yet.

-- Roland
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext