[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

RE: LDAP ACL Architecture

At 11:01 PM 4/10/00 -0600, Jim Sermersheim wrote:
>Right. The comment (by Kurt?) that convinced me of Ellen's sentiment went something like, "If it were elective, I would soften up on my review of it". 

My intent was "I review documents appropriate to their track as
time permits. I give priority to items I which have the most
significant impact to me."  I suspect others do the same.
Note, however, that the availability of reviewers should be a
factor in choosing "mandatory" over "recommended" over "optional".

[If "elective" this document will have less impact upon me and
and, hence, I would give it lower review priority...  However, any
review that I did perform would still be per the standard track
status of the document.]

>If we keep those two goals in mind, I think we can agree on a mandatory proposed standard.

I think we likely won't agree on mandatory vs recommeded vs optional
right away.  That's okay.  As I noted during our late night session
in Adeliade, I don't object to tabling this issue until a more
appropriate place [WG mailing list] and time [WG Last Call].

Kurt