Re: [ldapext] New LDAPEXT charter

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> > If you want to DBIS within IETG WG this you have to find people willing
>> > to
>> >
>> > 1. work on you on the documents as co-authors or at least reviewers
>> >
>> > 2. develop an independent DBIS implementation
>>
>> Exactly.  (1) is, of course, necessary for any work to proceed in any
>> working group.  While (2) is not strictly necessary according to RFCs
> 2026 and 6410, it's reasonable for a working group (and/or an Area
>> Director) to push for that
>
> (1) should be possible.  Is there an official process a reviewer needs to
> follow, in order to count as a reviewer for this purpose?

No, people just need to participate in the working group discussions,
and part of that would be the discussions of the documents we're
talking about.

> (2) seems to contradict your first point about a Proposed Standard not even
> needing an implementation.  Please help me understand this.  It is either
> required or not required in my case?

There's no contradiction: there's no IETF rule that requires
implementations for PS.  That said we don't want to spend a lot of
time developing proposed standards that no one will deploy.  So it's
reasonable for a working group to decide, by its own consensus, that
it doesn't want to work on something unless the working group is
satisfied that there's a commitment to implement and deploy it.

Some working groups are willing to work on things speculatively, and
some aren't.  In some cases, we have whole topic areas -- routing
algorithms and congestion control mechanisms come to mind -- where the
working groups require proposals to be published as Experimental
first.  These aren't IETF rules, but are working group decisions of
how they'll do their work.

Barry