Directory Deployment (dirdep) Concluded WG
Note: The data for concluded WGs is occasionally incorrect.
|Area||Applications Area (app)|
|Dependencies||Document dependency graph (SVG)|
Charter for Working Group
1) To gauge whether or not there is sufficient interest for
to step up as document editors. I'm not convinced you
can handle locating editors entirely via mailing lists.
My experience with standards work indicates that people who
volunteer face-to-face are more likely to follow through
than those who say so only on a mailing list.
2) Charter bashing in a public setting. I'm not convinced that
this process should happen completely on a mailing list. Not
it hasn't or won't for other proposals, just that a BOF seems
like a more appropriate venue for this particular type of WG.
3) There is a definite interest in this type of WG proposal.
observation is based on informal interactions with other IETF
folks as well as folks from the Defense Messaging System
and the Directories Commitee of the Electronic Messaging
4) There are five primary areas of concern when it comes to
a) installed base problems and mitigation strategies
b) schema inconsistencies and mappings
c) piloting activities in support of particular
of a directory service (e.g., forward knowledge of
certificates and a global white pages service)
d) co-existance of multiple IETF standards-track
e) help and guidance for the people who deploy
5) All of the work items described in the draft charter as
the email@example.com mailing list are believed to
useful (eventually) based on the experience of the person
requesting this BOF as well as based on many discussions with
IETFers and other folks. One goal of this BOF is to slice the
draft charter down to something more reasonable and focused
on what's important enough to tackle _now_. The remaining
be tabled or perhaps pushed off into its own BOF/WG at a
IETF meeting if there is sufficient interest to justify such