Subject: CAP: things that are out of scope

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:32:13 -0400

The CAP draft imposes some requirements that I believe are out of scope:

    * In section 2.4.2, there's a requirement that a CS integrated with
      a directory system must support the ability to configure which
      schema attribute stores the UPN. This is (a) irrelevant to CAP,
      because it's hidden from a CAP client, and (b) a bad requirement,
      because there is some value in implementations that couple the
      different servers more tightly than this. If you want to be able
      to mix-and-match LDAP and CAP servers, then this configurability
      is a useful feature; but maybe you want to build a CAP server with
      its own user directory, which exposes that directory via LDAP.
      That's integration with a directory server (itself), but there is
      no value in that case in being able to do this configuration.
    * In 2.4.2.1, there's a requirement that a CAP implementation must
      be able to configure what attribute in a certificate contains the
      UPN. Again, this is out of scope, because it's irrelevant to CAP,
      and it's not always a useful feature anyway (maybe your CS is also
      your CA).

-- 
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist |================================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Vlad was not a vampire, but that's the only nice|
[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>|thing that could be said about him.             |
\=================================================================/

---

From: George Babics <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:16:35 -0400

I am not sure why it was originally added to CAP.
You can check the archive or the CAP requirements
document.

  Paul? Steve? Do you know why these requirements
are part of CAP.

George