Re: Last Call: Naming Plan for Internet Directory-Enabled Applications to Proposed Standard 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 (cnri []) by (8.8.7/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id TAA04694 for <>; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:49:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id TAA08702 for <>; Wed, 24 Dec 1997 19:52:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from Breakaway.Stanford.EDU (breakaway.Stanford.EDU []) by (8.8.7/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id TAA04691 for <>; 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
In-reply-to: iesg's message of Mon, 15 Dec 1997 09:21:30 -0500
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 

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.