Subject: [ldapext] draft charter comment

From: William Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:39:19 +1000

Hi all,

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/4fEh3Y9adJEl24r2F0598bnXr
cg/?qid=f94a915c2574190c029541bc1d190a5e

as posted my Michael,

I think this looks good. I would say we just need to update the list of
members of said boards/groups to be current and make sure everyone is
still interested in the roles (and understands their responsibilities)

Second, I think we need a section in there about future work? We seem
to list only "lets clean things" as a group, but shouldn't we say " our
charter is to clean up the draft standards and then continue working on
curation of new standards"? 

Otherwise, I think this is good :) the sooner we agree on this, the
sooner we can start the important work,

Thanks,

-- 
Sincerely,

William Brown
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Australia/Brisbane

---

From: Howard Chu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:07:02 +0100

> curation of new standards"?

I think nobody at the time was going to be so ambitious as to work on new 
standards. ;)

But since you mention it, do you have any examples of things you'd like to see 
in new specs?

-- 
   -- Howard Chu
   CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
   Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
   Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/

---

From: William Brown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:16:51 +1000

> I think nobody at the time was going to be so ambitious as to work on

Better have it and not need it, than need it and not have it? 

> But since you mention it, do you have any examples of things you'd

I believe you and I were discussing an extension for query execution
plans with searches so that we could standardise our requests for
these?

But lets not get off topic only 2 days into this :) 

-- 
Sincerely,

William Brown
Software Engineer

---

From: Ludwig Krispenz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 09:20:40 +0200

On 10/27/2017 02:07 AM, Howard Chu wrote:
> I think nobody at the time was going to be so ambitious as to work on 
> new standards. ;)
>
> But since you mention it, do you have any examples of things you'd 
> like to see in new specs?
nothing new from my side, but what I am missing is the topics of 
extending ldap transactions and sync repl - as we discussed in Edinburgh

-- 
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Eric Shander

---

From: Michael Ströder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:13:37 +0200

William Brown wrote:
>>> Second, I think we need a section in there about future work? We 
>>> seem to list only "lets clean things" as a group, but shouldn't
>>> we say " our charter is to clean up the draft standards and then
>>> continue working on curation of new standards"?>>
>> I think nobody at the time was going to be so ambitious as to work
>> on new standards. ;)>

Note that we have to prove to the area director that we are able to form
a WG which is capable of getting real work done. And AFAIK the WGs are
not meant to exist forever. We can recharter later to add whatever we
want to do. But IMO we should do this *after* getting current work done.

Also note you're free to post individual I-Ds at any time and the WG can
decide at any time whether those get WG work items or not.

To me it seems this whole IETF process is pretty flexible. Therefore we
don't have to consider the future now.

So for now let's stick to most important work items and see whether we
manage to get those done.

Ciao, Michael.

---

From: Michael Ströder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:16:09 +0200

Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
> [..] what I am missing is the topics of

Ludwig, could you come up with some text describing this as concrete
work items? Then we can discuss whether to add that or not.

Ciao, Michael.

---

From: Ludwig Krispenz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:32:14 +0200

> work items? Then we can discuss whether to add that or not.
ok, one is:
extend rfc4533 - Content Synchronization Operation to support ldap 
transactions

the other one was raised at ldapcon2015 by ChristianHollenstein to 
extend rfc 5805  - LDAP transaction to allow a client to define the txn 
id and to allow to omit the txn control after a txn was started. Howard 
said he also had the need for some extensions to the protocol, but I do 
not remember what exactly. So I have some difficulties to find the right 
wording

---

From: Ludwig Krispenz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:34:49 +0200

> extend rfc4533 - Content Synchronization Operation to support ldap 
and there is a draft: 
https://docs.ldap.com/specs/draft-spacek-ldapext-syncrepl-transaction-01.txt
> extend rfc 5805  - LDAP transaction to allow a client to define the 
> txn id and to allow to omit the txn control after a txn was started. 
> Howard said he also had the need for some extensions to the protocol, 
> but I do not remember what exactly. So I have some difficulties to 
> find the right wording
>>
>> Ciao, Michael.
>>
>