Technical Summary:
This document describes the usage of HTTP for Registration Data
Directory Services. The goal of this document is to tie together
usage patterns of HTTP into a common profile applicable to the
various types of Directory Services serving Registration Data using
RESTful practices. By giving the various Directory Services common
behavior, a single client is better able to retrieve data from
Directory Services adhering to this behavior.
Working Group Summary:
During the development of the working group there has been a good
amount of review by multiple wg participants. There are no issues
arrived on the rough side of consensus and the document as a whole is
well carried by consensus.
This document is not contentious, but in the spirit of putting all
cards on the table: there is one point where it touches on an issue
that seems to be potentially create more discussion in the future and
that is the encapsulation format of the reply. The working is clearly
going for JSON although there are some that argue that XML might be
better suited for some deployments. This specification does allow,
just like the charter, a possiblilty for alternative reply
encapsulations. In other words, I do not see any problems for this
document. [AD Note: During AD Evaluation, the document was made
even clearer that it is agnostic as to data format, though the WG
still intends to concentrate on the JSON format in other docs.]
Document Quality:
During the previous IETF there has been a demo of 4 implementations.
There have been explicit statements by others that they believe the
RFC is of sufficient detail to implement against. There is no
indication this document underspecifies aspects.
There has not been a MIB, Media Type, DNS, or Sucurity expert review
(at least not with those explicit hats)
Personnel:
Chairs: Murray Kuchewary and Olaf Kolkman
Shepherd: Olaf Kolkman
AD: Pete Resnick