Subject: CAP and ACLs

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 13:05:48 -0800 (PST)

It seems to me that the word 'deferred' was an error in
the cap requirements document when it came to ACLs.

Several of us that worked on draft-ietf-calsch-capreq-02.txt
had been sending email and had a couple of meetings in order
to produce a requirements draft. It was viewed that ACLs would be
submitted as a separate draft. In that sense ACLs were deferred.

Yes - CAP will need to understand that there are ACLs (of some kind).

Frank Dawson and I have been writing our proposal for CAL-ACLs.
We were not ready to send it out yet.

But because of the confusion, I contacted Frank today and I
will be sending out our work in progress in the next couple of days.

As with any IETF WG, others are also welcome to submit drafts.

I hope this clarifies the issue.

Does anyone object to ACLs (of some kind) being proposed ?

Does anyone object to CAP being able to set/get/modify the
ACLs (in what ever form they will be defined) ?

I think we all agree that there must be some form of ACL.

I think we all agree that CAP must be able to set/get/modify ACLs.

-Doug
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[email-masked]		http://www.royer.com/People/Doug
801 W. El Camino #131		Work:   (650)786-7599
Mountain View, CA 94040		Ham Radio: N6AAW, Aviation: PP-ASEL

---

From: "Paul B. Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 17:50:40 -0500

At 01:05 PM 12/13/98 -0800, Doug Royer wrote:
[much deleted by pbh]
>...I hope this clarifies the issue.

Yes, it does. And posting this type of information to the list, in a timely
manner, is critical to moving the work forward.

 [re-order by pbh]
>submitted as a separate draft. In that sense ACLs were deferred.

Unfortunately, most of the email was not posted to the working group list,
nor were meeting minutes posted to the working group list. During the
Orlando working group meeting a commitment was made to post the meeting
notes of future interim meetings to the list. Also a commitment was made to
announce these interim meetings to the list ahead of time. During the
meeting it was made clear that at least two of these meetings had already
been scheduled for after Orlando. However, I don't recall seeing the
information about these meetings posted to the list yet.

>As with any IETF WG, others are also welcome to submit drafts.

I'd rather not see confusion created within the working group by divergent
drafts. However, if the current group of _authors_ continues to act as if
the documents were private submissions, there is a chance that there will
be multiple conflicting submissions on the same subject. Please note that I
was very careful in my choice of the word "authors" rather than "editors"
in this context.

Paul

---

From: Bob Mahoney <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 19:01:25 -0500

>I hope this clarifies the issue.

It does.  

To expand slightly on Paul Hill's note, I'd like to remind everyone that
our work product comes from consensus that arises on the mailing list.  WG
Participants should be able to be productive and up-to-date merely from
following and communicating on the list.  Regular and interim
physical-world meetings can be helpful in ironing out details, but it is
not where our work gets done.  And the meetings should be publicly
announced and reported upon.

The current CAP draft contains a lot of good work, but it does not yet
enjoy an approving consensus.  It would have been better for the underlying
discussions to have taken place on the list, and certainly much of the
ground already covered between the authors will have to be revisited on the
list before everyone is on the same page.

>I think we all agree that there must be some form of ACL.

I hope so.  In the few mailings on the subject most recently and back in
October, that seems the case.

-Bob