Editor's Note: These minutes have not been edited.
IDS WG Meeting Meeting Minutes
Wednesday, April 9, 9-10am
Reported by: Linda Millington
1. Liaison Reports
The liaison reports will be posted directly to the mailing list. Barbara
Jennings will forward details about the EMA directory Challenge to the list.
2. Documents Status
Managing the X.500 Root Naming context has been published as RFC 2120
(Experimental)
Use of DNS Aliases for Network Services will be submitted to the next IESG
meeting as a BCP
A Common Schema for the Internet White Pages Service will be updated then
submitted to the IESG as Proposed Standard
The X.500 Catalog is currently progressing as Informational
Best current Practice for the Internet white Pages Service received very
little comment during Last Call and will be submitted to the IESG as a BCP
3. Work Items Outstanding
The two Nomenclator Drafts will be updated and published as Informational
Progress on the PH Architecture Draft is sought in the near future or this
item will be dropped from the work list
4. Naming Plan for an Internet Directory Service
The Approach for Using Domains in LDAP Distinguished Names and the Naming
Plan for an Internet Directory Service Drafts were merged and distributed to
the mailing list as agreed in San Jose. The Group discussed this Draft and
recommended that the following changes be made in order to make the intent
clearer and that the future intent was to forward this as Proposed Standard :
a. Crisper requirements are needed
b. What problems are being solved needs to be clarified
c. The minimum criteria necessary to comply with this scheme must be defined
d. Wording needs to be tightened up on the implied finding of LDAP servers
There was also discussion on which properties of DNs should we depend on
with them currently being used for uniqueness, search constraint bases and
actual information held in the entries. Further discussion on this topic
will continue on the mailing list.
Migration to and implementation of this naming scheme belong in a separate
Draft and
it was suggested that the WHOIS++ deployment experience should be heeded and
that operational experience (12 months + at least) should be sought before
finalising the scheme.
