Re: [ldapext] New LDAPEXT charter

Barry Leiba <> Tue, 24 November 2015 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB12F1A872D for <>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:07:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yhu9XvaPZgAi for <>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:07:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CD541A8733 for <>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:07:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vkha189 with SMTP id a189so13243095vkh.2 for <>; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:07:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=C7cJeeLIXMb72Dz3oZj05A8rOJY1X+WH85OnApWsQCU=; b=kAMy1fuxy6beowNMHgA7ddo6qtLYNpdWEW7ltcjR85mUb5klD/LggBRsNw8EAYanoo 0p1R7kKHJNBs1UxqLA+6L69jtv4RxOAASnOtDIHcpJdx402T3oLorZzqN5IUCYWIyKUQ /IhoUVeVHOgrx4xZr5H2SXE0JhHbuAP1OvzRfO3BCvOBnOEHIHL0EqymT0GKeC49DT7u 5hSqAGllUds0R0bbpH+i/zAuNXfcm65G3YgiQqsw59H22BHgFWyOi+/UHHYem2J9cViI DV9ffuKmIfph7MzlojprbVo6/r6LtFlsAYaOUe+y0fI8l4ZH1y1+MP4xnKf0fWdxWRLw FptQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id y129mr26502882vkd.156.1448377671510; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:07:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:07:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:07:51 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ljKWC-pbssIh7P0GRoaO2zcnmRA
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Mark R Bannister <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ldapext <>
Subject: Re: [ldapext] New LDAPEXT charter
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: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:07:53 -0000

>> > 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.