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.