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. Normally a new standard would be rfc and then the next number available. This one deviated, It used the same number as the old one and appended text. The standard itself is good enough to be used by Active Directory and FreeIPA by default.
I am having a really hard time finding anyone who says that the standard is bad. I am willing to bet that if Luke Howard puts out this latest proposal out under the name of the next available rfc number today, which according to ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-ref.txt would be rfc8203 it will be approved before the end of the year.
According to Ludo here https://ludopoitou.com/2011/04/20/linux-and-unix-ldap-clients-and-rfc2307-su... , I can campaign for the standard myself if I had permission from the authors.
I would do it to streamline documentation and, get the new standard into OpenLDAP 2.5 so it will be in OpenLDAP 2.6 by default.
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.
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.
Hi,
As far as I remember, since this happened more than 10 years ago, Luke working with people at HP started to revise RFC2307 (which is experimental i.e. not even close to a standard). Sun and HP implemented some of the ideas, but other vendors did not.
Just my 2 cents.
Ludo — Ludovic Poitou http://ludopoitou.com
On 27 June 2017 at 17:43:09, John Lewis (oflameo2@gmail.com) wrote:
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.
On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 09:02 -0700, Ludovic Poitou wrote:
Hi,
As far as I remember, since this happened more than 10 years ago, Luke working with people at HP started to revise RFC2307 (which is experimental i.e. not even close to a standard). Sun and HP implemented some of the ideas, but other vendors did not.
Just my 2 cents.
Ludo — Ludovic Poitou http://ludopoitou.com
Sure, but SMTP is a Draft Standard https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321 , but I trust it get this message to you.
It may be a good idea to not only think of it as a technical doc to define how the protocol works, but also as a marketing doc to let the world know that people are still working on it, so it is still being maintained. It is not bit rotting.
If people will see that the LDAP Group rolled a new NIS Schema as an IETF standard. It would give people an excuse try it out and upgrade. Some people will go further and try LDAP out as a distributed memory access protocol for other applications because it is working so well for their user accounts and they really want to consolidate to save on licensing and or technical debt.
Maybe we will feel like renaming the on the wire protocol to DMAP (Distributed Memory Access Protocol) to make it sound faster. I don't think it is that much of a stretch because OpenLDAP 2.4 ships with corba.schema and java.schema on Debian.
John Lewis wrote:
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.
If you want to drive this you should definitely subscribe to ieft-ldapext mailing list and follow-up there.
Ciao, Michael.
openldap-technical@openldap.org
-
John Lewis -
Ludovic Poitou -
Michael Ströder