Re: Why didn't rfc2307bis supersede rfc2307?

[John Lewis <oflameo2@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 11:01 +0200, Michael Ströder wrote:
> John Lewis wrote:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-rfc2307bis-02
> > 
> > They only thing that jumps at me is the name. It doesn't follow rfc
> > norms.
> 
> Naming is fine because it's still only a Internet draft and not an RFC.
> 
> > I am having a really hard time finding anyone who says that the standard
> > is bad.
> 
> It's simply not finished. After LDAPcon 2015 there was an attempt to resurrect
> ietf-ldapext WG and one of the possible work items would be to get this to RFC status.
> 
> If you're eager to push this you should thoroughly review the discussions on the still
> functional ietf-ldapext mailing list before:
> 
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ldapext/
> 
> Ciao, Michael.
> 

It is only going to take me a couple days to read the whole archive
(Thanks Evolution team https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Evolution/ for mbox
import support) and another half hour to change into the cloths of the
corporate entity I want to go into the discussion as.

I haven't manage to come across any flamewars that caused and impasse
yet. Were there any troublesome threads where a decision wasn't made?
The only thing particularly notable is one or two guys are trying to
standardize behavior they want to see in the main standard that nobody
wants as a default because it is a bad default and try to sell another
standard that will work whether or not rfc2307-02 gets ratified as a new
rfc. They already negated their own issue and has no room to negotiate.