[ldapext] Revive ldapext WG?

Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com> Fri, 26 September 2014 12:23 UTC

Return-Path: <michael@stroeder.com>
X-Original-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1A31A1B5E for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 05:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.087
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u8GoPyRNOxaW for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 05:23:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv1.stroeder.com (srv1.stroeder.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C48721A1B68 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 05:23:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by srv1.stroeder.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59DA8602ED for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:23:35 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at stroeder.com
Received: from srv1.stroeder.com ([]) by localhost (srv1.stroeder.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qt2Pou1_5AQe for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:23:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "michael@stroeder.com", Issuer "StartCom Class 1 Primary Intermediate Client CA" (verified OK)) by srv1.stroeder.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52A21602C4 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:23:29 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <54255AC1.8040705@stroeder.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:23:29 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGFlbCBTdHLDtmRlcg==?= <michael@stroeder.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ldapext <ldapext@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms080302000300000009080700"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/oW1DshOJWnA7M8vcTdy7FElYJ3Y
Subject: [ldapext] Revive ldapext WG?
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 26 Sep 2014 12:23:43 -0000


AFAICS independent draft submissions can only reach informational or
experimental status.

But I think it should be possible to reach standard status for some important
drafts (like ppolicy draft as discussed at LDAPcon 2013).

What do you think about it?
Should IETF WG ldapext should be revived?

Ciao, Michael.