On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 11:01 +0200, Michael Ströder wrote:
John Lewis wrote:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-rfc2307bis-02
They only thing that jumps at me is the name. It doesn't follow rfc norms.
Naming is fine because it's still only a Internet draft and not an RFC.
I am having a really hard time finding anyone who says that the standard is bad.
It's simply not finished. After LDAPcon 2015 there was an attempt to resurrect ietf-ldapext WG and one of the possible work items would be to get this to RFC status.
If you're eager to push this you should thoroughly review the discussions on the still functional ietf-ldapext mailing list before:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ldapext/
Ciao, Michael.
It is only going to take me a couple days to read the whole archive (Thanks Evolution team https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Evolution/ for mbox import support) and another half hour to change into the cloths of the corporate entity I want to go into the discussion as.
I haven't manage to come across any flamewars that caused and impasse yet. Were there any troublesome threads where a decision wasn't made? The only thing particularly notable is one or two guys are trying to standardize behavior they want to see in the main standard that nobody wants as a default because it is a bad default and try to sell another standard that will work whether or not rfc2307-02 gets ratified as a new rfc. They already negated their own issue and has no room to negotiate.