[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [ldapext] IETF#73 LDAP BOF Proposal
On Aug 30, 2008, at 7:47 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> Kurt,
> Can you be more specific about which documents you have in mind for
> both groups of documents you proposed to work on?
For revision work, I think each LDAP extension specified as an RFC is
a possible work candidate, especially those published pre-RFC4510.
Obviously the working group cannot take on all at once, or even all
ever. So there needs to be some prioritization done here. I have a
few thoughts here, but have yet to attempt to put together my own top-
few list. Pre-BOF it would be good for each person willing to do work
in this area to post their top-few candidates. We can then see if
there is any consensus on what the proposed WG should be chartered to
do first, put that into the proposed WG charter. (My own top-few list
would likely include updating LDIF [RFC2849].)
For new engineering, LDAP Transaction [draft-zeilenga-ldap-txn] and
LDAP Relax Rules [draft-zeilenga-ldap-relax] tops my personal list.
In the next few weeks I'll try to put a draft a proposed WG charter
for list discussion, and likely at BOF discussion.
-- Kurt
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@isode.com
> > wrote:
> I intend to send a BOF proposal for IETF#73 for the purpose of forming
> a new working group to undertake LDAP standards work. Below is a
> rough proposal for your consideration and comments. (I am surely
> biased as what new engineering efforts the proposed WG ought take on,
> please do feel free to offer other possible work items.)
>
> -- Kurt
>
>
> Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) BOF
>
> Chair(s): TBD
>
> The purpose of this BOF is to discuss the formation of a working group
> to undertake LDAP standards work. It is conceived that the proposed
> WG would undertake both the revision of existing technical
> specifications for LDAP extensions and the engineering of new LDAP
> extensions.
>
> There are numerous existing technical specifications for LDAP
> extensions. Most of the Standard Track specifications were published
> prior to the current LDAP "core" specification [RFC 4510] and are in
> the need of revision. In some cases, it may be more appropriate to
> move the extension off the Standards Track. While the work of
> determining which RFC should be revised (or moved off to a different
> track), and prioritization of the work, could be deferred to the WG,
> it is hoped that the BOF will reach some conclusions as to which
> revision work is of the highest priority.
>
> There are also numerous extensions to LDAP which seem worthy of
> standardization. It is hoped that the BOF will reach some conclusion
> as to short list of new extension work items to be undertaken (at
> least initially) by the proposed WG. That short list might include,
> for instance, in LDAP Transactions and Extensions for X.500 Alignment.
>
> By including both revision and new engineering work items in a single
> working group it is hoped that the sufficient participation levels
> will be maintained to make reasonable progress in both revision and
> new engineering work.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ldapext mailing list
> Ldapext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext
>
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext