Re: [ldapext] draft charter comment

William Brown <wibrown@redhat.com> Fri, 27 October 2017 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <wibrown@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B78A813B261 for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 17:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 n1Z7eUIdWdIx for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 17:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42D6A13A302 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 17:16:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE5D880F9F; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:16:54 +0000 (UTC)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com DE5D880F9F
Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: ext-mx03.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=wibrown@redhat.com
Received: from rei.prd.blackhats.net.au (vpn2-54-69.bne.redhat.com [10.64.54.69]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04F175C6D9; Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:16:53 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1509063411.20220.101.camel@redhat.com>
From: William Brown <wibrown@redhat.com>
To: Howard Chu <hyc@highlandsun.com>, ldapext@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 10:16:51 +1000
In-Reply-To: <02ca8531-454c-4034-1402-346a299c331c@highlandsun.com>
References: <1509061159.20220.91.camel@redhat.com> <02ca8531-454c-4034-1402-346a299c331c@highlandsun.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-JrSfgHGZN3SSaS8EKB+C"
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.27]); Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:16:55 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/mdRkTwFlFvtewcAf5M_6b-BZRAA>
Subject: Re: [ldapext] draft charter comment
X-BeenThere: ldapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 27 Oct 2017 00:16:57 -0000

On Fri, 2017-10-27 at 01:07 +0100, Howard Chu wrote:
> William Brown wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/4fEh3Y9adJEl24r2F0598
> > bnXr
> > cg/?qid=f94a915c2574190c029541bc1d190a5e
> > 
> > as posted my Michael,
> > 
> > I think this looks good. I would say we just need to update the
> > list of
> > members of said boards/groups to be current and make sure everyone
> > is
> > still interested in the roles (and understands their
> > responsibilities)
> > 
> > Second, I think we need a section in there about future work? We
> > seem
> > to list only "lets clean things" as a group, but shouldn't we say "
> > our
> > charter is to clean up the draft standards and then continue
> > working on
> > curation of new standards"?
> 
> I think nobody at the time was going to be so ambitious as to work on
> new 
> standards. ;)

Better have it and not need it, than need it and not have it? 

> 
> But since you mention it, do you have any examples of things you'd
> like to see 
> in new specs?

I believe you and I were discussing an extension for query execution
plans with searches so that we could standardise our requests for
these?

But lets not get off topic only 2 days into this :) 


> > 
> > Otherwise, I think this is good :) the sooner we agree on this, the
> > sooner we can start the important work,
> 
> 
-- 
Sincerely,

William Brown
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Australia/Brisbane