Re: Last Call: Naming Plan for Internet Directory-Enabled Applications to Proposed Standard
Jeff.Hodges@stanford.edu Thu, 25 December 1997 00:49 UTC
Delivery-Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:49:24 -0500
Return-Path: hodges@Breakaway.Stanford.EDU
Received: from ns.cnri.reston.va.us (cnri [132.151.1.1]) by ns.ietf.org (8.8.7/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id TAA04694 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:49:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ns.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ns.cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id TAA08702 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:52:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from Breakaway.Stanford.EDU (breakaway.Stanford.EDU [36.53.0.203]) by ns.ietf.org (8.8.7/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id TAA04691 for <iesg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:49:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (hodges@localhost) by Breakaway.Stanford.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA12659; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 16:49:16 -0800
Message-Id: <199712250049.QAA12659@Breakaway.Stanford.EDU>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96
Subject: Re: Last Call: Naming Plan for Internet Directory-Enabled Applications to Proposed Standard
To: iesg@ns.ietf.org
cc: ietf-ids@umich.edu
In-reply-to: iesg's message of Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:21:30 -0500
Reply-to: ietf-ids@umich.edu
From: Jeff.Hodges@stanford.edu
X-Office: Pine Hall Rm 161; +1-415-723-2452
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 16:49:15 -0800
Sender: hodges@Breakaway.Stanford.EDU
I don't feel that draft-ietf-ids-dirnaming-03.txt should presently go forward on the standards track because, as it is presently written, the requirements section (sec 3.0) is vague and not thoroughly presented -- thus the problem space definition is fuzzy. Additionally, dirnaming-03.txt presents a specific solution to the problem space, built on top of the fuzzy requirements analysis. My understanding of the IESG's stated position is that we must have well-defined requirements before we can devise reasonable solutions, especially in complex, subtle, and far-reaching problem spaces, such as directories. I believe that the we need to agree on the requirements before moving forwards on implementations (i.e. specific plans). A DN requirements document (draft-hodges-ldap-dir-dn-reqs-00.txt) is being currently discussed on the LDAP Service Deployment distribution list <IETF-LSD@LISTSERV.UMU.SE> and will be added to the LSD charter. It seems to me that when the IESG has accepted that or another requirements document, then it's appropriate for drafts describing specific naming plans based upon those requirements to go forward. Until then, I feel the dirnaming draft is premature and unlikely to meet the our long-term needs. thanks, Jeff
- Re: Last Call: Naming Plan for Internet Directory… Al Grimstad
- Re: Last Call: Naming Plan for Internet Directory… Jeff.Hodges
- Re: Fw: Last Call: Naming Plan for Internet Direc… Al Grimstad
- Re: Fw: Last Call: Naming Plan for Internet Direc… Al Grimstad
- Re: Fw: Last Call: Naming Plan for Internet Direc… Al Grimstad
- Re: Fw: Last Call: Naming Plan for Internet Direc… Bruce Greenblatt
- Re: Fw: Last Call: Naming Plan for Internet Direc… Bruce Greenblatt