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.