Re: [NGO] access control

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 04:38:27AM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote:
>  
>> I doubt vendors will accept a new standard DML every time
>> the IETF wants to add 'one more clause'.  I think it will be very
>> difficult to introduce new versions of the DML.
> 
> Lets simply disagree on this. I believe extensibility of a DML is much
> like extensibility of a protocol a good thing.
> 

The vendors participating in SMING made it very clear
that supporting multiple versions of the the SMI would
be too expensive to be worth it.

>>> Andy, why do you not get a team together to work out a decent access
>>> control proposal? This would be forward progress...
>> Because I already posted a draft on access control (as did 4 or 5
>> others) and they were all ignored, so I'm pretty sure that's what
>> would happen again.
> 
> Do you seriously believe the many complaints you post here are going
> to change that? Perhaps it is time to revise / integrate drafts and to
> try again. This would be a more constructive approach to make
> progress.
> 

I am not trying to work on access control now, just trying
to understand the requirements.

Several people have noted that a development approach for a
data modeling language should consider many (if not all)
aspects of system design.

There will be many opportunities for reviewing and changing
the DML.  I may propose changes to the DML to support access control
configuration and enforcement.

I expect that any and all DML features are on the table for discussion
and access control is not special in that regard.

> /js
> 

Andy

_______________________________________________
NGO mailing list
NGO@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ngo