Re: Proposed LIDS Working Group

["Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV)" <[e-mail]>]

==> From: [e-mail]

> From the list above I fear that LIDS might limit itself to be
> a "home" for several protocols specifications and not
> the "home" for the "Internet directory service" we all
> need.
> 
> $v
> 
> 

Paul-andre,

Good remarks, and Tim will certainly iuse many of them for a new version of
the charter, however your last remark (quoted above) is correct. I intended
(and you may correct me on this) to have multiple WGs established that work
on the IDS. One will work on the concept/framework/architectue, based on the
WPS BOF outcome. One will probably work on naming and naming schemas, and
one will work on access and synchronization protocols (LIDS). 

I like the separation because otherwise the WG will become too large and
unfocused. LIDS could already start because there is enough of work to get
it going without conflict with WPS (CLDAP, SOLO).

I realise that the separation requires good coordination, byut am confident
we will have enough cross participation to warrant that. 

In LIDS might indeed not be the appropriate name (Maybe ASID
(pronounced ACID) Access and Synchronization of Internet Directory) and
agree that where possible the WG should take non-WP into account. However
if focus on WP makes the effort pay off I think we have to accept that,
and work later on to extend to other services. That's the Internet way:
Small focus=quick results but not all inclusive. So I would retain focus on
WPS but mention in the charter that other services will be taken into
consideration (allow it in but do not allow it to slow down the efforts).

In summary: I'd like to chop things up in different WGs, that we coordinate
to get an integrated result. On top of these there will be separate WHOIS++
and X.500 WGs that work on specific issues for these protocols, but using
the results of WGs like LIDS.

Erik