Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldapext-locate-04.txt

From: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 01:54:33 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, 30 Aug 2000, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:

> This draft is pretty much ready to be progressed. However,
> I believe the removal of CLDAP is incomplete.

Aaaargh.  We have been through this already.  Discussion of this issue in
June led to the inclusion of these clarifying sentences in version -03 of
this document:

  "_ldap._tcp" applies to services 
   compatible with LDAPv2 [7] or LDAPv3 [1].  "_ldap._udp" 
   applies to services compatible with CLDAP [8].

I am at a loss for why this text was dropped from version -04.  I can find
no subsequent discussion on the list or among the co-authors about making
this change. So, IMHO, this sentence, and the reference to CLDAP, needs to
go back in, for precisely the reasons it went in in the first place.

Kurt, I understand and appreciate your concern for designing documents
that are able to move along the standards track.  But removing useful and
entirely correct information from a current document based on a prediction
about the future status of other documents seems to me, pardon my
frankness, to be the very essence of narrow-minded counter-productive
bureaucratic thinking.  If, following the enormous effort of moving the
core LDAP specs to Draft Standard, there is an ounce of energy left in the
universe for moving the dns-locate document to Draft Standard, *and*, if
by that time there is no LDAPv3-over-UDP spec that is capable of moving to
Draft, then I promise you we will take the reference to udp and CLDAP out
of this doc.  But for now it's useful, it clarifies the situation, and it
should stay (or be put back) in.

 - RL "Bob"

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 07:30:29 -0700

At 01:54 AM 9/1/00 -0700, RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote:

>I am at a loss for why this text was dropped from version -04.

But it was dropped, hence my comment.

>But for now it's useful, it clarifies the situation, and it

If that's the consensus of the WG, do it (now!) and progress it
(soon).   It was not my intent to cause this I-D endlessly revision.
I had a point for consideration, I made it, it was considered,
let's move on.

        Kurt