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.
Kurt, Can you be more specific about which documents you have in mind for both groups of documents you proposed to work on? On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Kurt Zeilenga Kurt.Zeilenga@isode.comwrote:
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
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
I've submitted a BOF proposal to Apps ADs for their consideration. Amongst other factors in determining whether to approve this BOF, they will need to be convinced that there is sufficient level of participation in the BOF and the proposed WG. It would be helpful for those interested to express their interest, either on list or in person to Alexey (who has agreed to chair the BOF), and/or myself, within the next week or so.
Regards, Kurt
On Aug 29, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
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.
Hi Kurt,
I am interested in participating to both the BOF and proposed WG.
Ludovic.
On Sep 15, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
I've submitted a BOF proposal to Apps ADs for their consideration. Amongst other factors in determining whether to approve this BOF, they will need to be convinced that there is sufficient level of participation in the BOF and the proposed WG. It would be helpful for those interested to express their interest, either on list or in person to Alexey (who has agreed to chair the BOF), and/or myself, within the next week or so.
Regards, Kurt
On Aug 29, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
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.
Ludovic Poitou Sun Microsystems Inc. OpenDS Community Lead Directory Services http://blogs.sun.com/Ludo/ Grenoble Engineering Center - France
Sun Microsystems requires the following notice: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would be interested in participating.
Thanks, Peter
Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
I've submitted a BOF proposal to Apps ADs for their consideration. Amongst other factors in determining whether to approve this BOF, they will need to be convinced that there is sufficient level of participation in the BOF and the proposed WG. It would be helpful for those interested to express their interest, either on list or in person to Alexey (who has agreed to chair the BOF), and/or myself, within the next week or so.
Regards, Kurt
On Aug 29, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
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.
I'm also very interested in participating.
Thanks.
I'm interested as well.
A number of folks have asked me whether there was a requirement to attend any particular IETF meeting to participate in this effort. The answer is "no". Those who are willing to participate, via any means, are encouraged to express their interest.
Regards, Kurt
On Sep 15, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
I've submitted a BOF proposal to Apps ADs for their consideration. Amongst other factors in determining whether to approve this BOF, they will need to be convinced that there is sufficient level of participation in the BOF and the proposed WG. It would be helpful for those interested to express their interest, either on list or in person to Alexey (who has agreed to chair the BOF), and/or myself, within the next week or so.
Regards, Kurt
Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
I've submitted a BOF proposal to Apps ADs for their consideration. Amongst other factors in determining whether to approve this BOF, they will need to be convinced that there is sufficient level of participation in the BOF and the proposed WG. It would be helpful for those interested to express their interest, either on list or in person to Alexey (who has agreed to chair the BOF), and/or myself, within the next week or so.
Regards, Kurt
I would like to participate.
Neil Wilson
Kurt Zeilenga writes:
Amongst other factors in determining whether to approve this BOF, they will need to be convinced that there is sufficient level of participation in the BOF and the proposed WG.
I'd participate in the WG's mailinglist and hopefully some WG meeting, but probably not this BOF.
One question about the WG charter: Stick to features with existing implementations, or consider significant new invention, or leave that choice open?
Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
Kurt Zeilenga writes:
Amongst other factors in determining whether to approve this BOF, they will need to be convinced that there is sufficient level of participation in the BOF and the proposed WG.
I'd participate in the WG's mailinglist and hopefully some WG meeting, but probably not this BOF.
One question about the WG charter: Stick to features with existing implementations, or consider significant new invention, or leave that choice open?
I would think that the choice is open at the moment. If you have some suggestions (in either category), now would be a good time to mention them.
Alexey Melnikov writes:
Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
One question about the WG charter: Stick to features with existing implementations, or consider significant new invention, or leave that choice open?
I would think that the choice is open at the moment. If you have some suggestions (in either category), now would be a good time to mention them.
No, just curious at the moment. Workflow and results can be rather different for the two.
I won't be attending the BOF, but I will participate in a working group, including as editor for some of the working group documents.
Regards, Steven
Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
I've submitted a BOF proposal to Apps ADs for their consideration. Amongst other factors in determining whether to approve this BOF, they will need to be convinced that there is sufficient level of participation in the BOF and the proposed WG. It would be helpful for those interested to express their interest, either on list or in person to Alexey (who has agreed to chair the BOF), and/or myself, within the next week or so.
I'd be willing to contribute to the work of the WG but will not attend the BOF.
Ciao, Michael.
Michael Ströder wrote:
Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
I've submitted a BOF proposal to Apps ADs for their consideration. Amongst other factors in determining whether to approve this BOF, they will need to be convinced that there is sufficient level of participation in the BOF and the proposed WG. It would be helpful for those interested to express their interest, either on list or in person to Alexey (who has agreed to chair the BOF), and/or myself, within the next week or so.
I'd be willing to contribute to the work of the WG but will not attend the BOF.
Same for me. Cheers, p.
Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team
SysNet s.r.l. via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it ----------------------------------- Office: +39 02 23998309 Mobile: +39 333 4963172 Fax: +39 0382 476497 Email: ando@sys-net.it -----------------------------------
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 10:27:57AM -0700, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
I've submitted a BOF proposal to Apps ADs for their consideration.
I won't be at IETF#73 but count me in for the working group.
Andrew
-
Alexey Melnikov -
Andrew Findlay -
Gavin Henry -
Hallvard B Furuseth -
Howard Chu -
Kurt Zeilenga -
Kurt Zeilenga
-
Ludovic Poitou -
Michael Ströder -
Neil A. Wilson -
Peter Buonora -
Pierangelo Masarati -
Steven Legg