Re: [ldapext] LDAP work at IETF...

Andrew Findlay <> Mon, 26 January 2015 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52B21A902A for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:16:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.798
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kXG9RkvTW58v for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:16:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f15:20::201]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BD7E1A854D for <>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 11:16:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([2001:8b0:8d0:f7e1:221:6aff:fe6d:90b2] by with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1YFp90-0005vV-FJ; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:16:18 +0000
Received: from andrew by with local (Exim 4.83) (envelope-from <>) id 1YFp8z-000051-Vm; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:16:17 +0000
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:16:17 +0000
From: Andrew Findlay <>
To: Ludovic Poitou <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <etPan.54c553b0.19e21bb2.1f2@lpm.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <etPan.54c553b0.19e21bb2.1f2@lpm.local>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: Andrew Findlay <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Howard Chu <>,, Michael =?iso-8859-1?Q?Str=F6der?= <>
Subject: Re: [ldapext] LDAP work at IETF...
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:16:24 -0000

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 09:36:00PM +0100, Ludovic Poitou wrote:

> There are a number of individuals that have interest in re-forming an IETF Working Group around LDAP to finish some of the work and make them on the Standard Track. Howard Chu and I are ready to lead that effort.  


> I’d like to poll the audience of this mailing list on the interest of seeing this progressing. I would also like to hear about volunteers to work on those documents, either contributing text or reviewing them carefully.  

Count me in, particularly for groups and mail-related objects.
Note that there is some overlap between the groups work and later
drafts of RFC2307bis. I would like to see groups factored out into
a separate document as it has wider implications.

I can see some conflict developing between 'do it right' and 'document
current practice' - particularly in 2307bis, password policy, and
inetOrgPerson. This probably needs resolving early as it has potential
to derail the effort later. One option is to do both - possibly in
separate documents.

|                 From Andrew Findlay, Skills 1st Ltd                 |
| Consultant in large-scale systems, networks, and directory services |
|                +44 1628 782565     |