Re: [ldapext] LDAP Groups topic split-out

Charlie <medievalist@gmail.com> Fri, 04 December 2015 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <medievalist@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E9F61A8971 for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:30:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F0qOV08TdqgI for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:30:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x234.google.com (mail-lf0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F9751A8BBD for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:30:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by lfdl133 with SMTP id l133so116108595lfd.2 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:30:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=J1d8VIsEXmw93U5wrmJau0IgdUyDwhp5MkR/jVmyeWc=; b=mZsPS/NTf3te/Qfm5seOgxW4DHqUDUsE3yA3u6LLvovQRcqLBUIqF6WmGX7SXIlmoT BKGgEUCIscQZTCckggtz5AKBr+OZ3LLtCPhS+Qn+cxF0iEFuyBExezp5VpWOniB785tL WMMtCIjwLvdzcji5Jad4+u+7c9evBywfrTpxm0C5XN8Y8XalmJXK7V2TBheTjMmF6y73 wFqK26lu5+gojxZ29fYjoKiH5vIb7SuSq4QEYPlPdUIbJNI5UayNTHV5dUvLRGLu7AxB FXWgfLOptNIK82c6jW5OXy0IOnfb4t+q/rlDTTE75xVx9bCAJJbDzDL66xlD02nMzRWE Uhew==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.25.29.205 with SMTP id d196mr8580919lfd.81.1449250222388; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:30:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.80.193 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:30:22 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <566164B6.9080008@stroeder.com>
References: <CAJb3uA57jHCfhN6tQB6Kc7uOGF3g4w6GVmr6+OnhD4=k5zqEzw@mail.gmail.com> <566164B6.9080008@stroeder.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:30:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJb3uA4AT8Ua-XYK3wq=jpY3D94ZOPOLWUXuE_fAs_zonwm7hQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Charlie <medievalist@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_Str=C3=B6der?= <michael@stroeder.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/SlfW9UV7mQJlsPsfQSRZq0SaGek>
Cc: ldapext <ldapext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ldapext] LDAP Groups topic split-out
X-BeenThere: ldapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <ldapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ldapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:ldapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 17:30:35 -0000

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com>; wrote:
>
> http://typinganimal.net/rants/textify.php?f=draft-brooks-ldap-sets-00.txt
>
> Although you will likely claim that your I-D also describes the problem in
> general you're already endorsing a particular solution. :-/

I have indeed endorsed a particular solution, but I support any effort
that will address any of the structural problems exposed by real-life
daily directory administration.

In section 3 of my I-D I enumerated the requirements for a generalized
solution to all grouping problems in real-world directories.  Any
solution that satisfies those requirements will make the world a
better place.  It doesn't have to be MY solution.

But pragmatically, everyone is going to end up using memberOf
attributes eventually.   This should be clear by now; it's certainly
clear to our friends in Redmond and Raleigh.  We can fight this and
make it painful for everyone involved - or we can accept it as
architecturally correct, and create useful LDAP standards for
programmers working towards system interoperability.

--Charlie