Re: Last Call: Naming Plan for Internet Directory-Enabled Applications to Proposed Standard

[[e-mail]]

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 <[e-mail]> 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