It's come to my attention that draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-07 has a normative reference to draft-zeilenga-ldap-subentry-07. Since the informod authors are trying to clean up infomod for publication, what's your plans for publishing this draft? Thanks, Ryan (for the infomod authors)
At 03:25 AM 8/6/2003, Ryan Moats wrote: >It's come to my attention that draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-07 >has a normative reference to draft-zeilenga-ldap-subentry-07. > >Since the informod authors are trying to clean up infomod for publication, >what's your plans for publishing this draft? The subentry I-D should soon appear in the RFC Editor's queue... Kurt
Sorry for the delay in getting these out, I had a family emergency. Please look them over and send any corrections/additions asap, and I'll forward to the IETF.thanks and kind regards,John
John Strassner
Chief Strategy Officer
Intelliden Corporation
90 South Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80903 USA
phone: +1.719.785.0648
FAX: +1.719.785.0644
email: john.strassner <at> intelliden.com
LDAP Duplication/Replication/Update Protocols WG (ldup)
Tuesday, July 15, at 1300-1400
===============================
CHAIRS: Chris Apple <capple <at> dsi-consulting.net>
John Strassner <john.strassner <at> intelliden.com>
Minutes taken by: John Strassner
The meeting was run according to the posted agenda. The meeting
minutes therefore mirror the agenda topics.
LDAP Duplication/Replication/Update Protocols WG (ldup)
Tuesday, July 15 at 1300-1400
================================
CHAIRS: Chris Apple <capple <at> dsi-consulting.net>
John Strassner <john.strassner <at> intelliden.com>
AGENDA:
1) Agenda Additions?
No additions were asked for, so the meeting proceeded according to the agenda.
2) LCUP WG Last Call & Status
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-lcup-05.txt
No further discussion occurred on this document.
3) Remaining WG Documents
InfoMod Draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-07.txt
Rick Huber presented slides describing the progress of this draft.
This presentation reflects the new group of authors that are
picking up the work. The authors presented a number of questions to
the working group involving various attributes defined in the draft.
The first was whether the two RootDSA attributes are really useful.
They were originally defined to help discovery, but the classes all
have unique names, so this need is no longer crucial. Steven Legg
proposed removing them, and people in the meeting agreed. No one
asked to have them left in the draft. Thus, since the MRM draft will
by definition discover any problems with these or other similar
attributes not being defined in the draft, it was decided to remove
these for the next revision of the draft.
Other attributes attributeExclusionFilter, attributeInclusionFilter,
secondsToWaitDefault, and secondsToWait2 were defined as
disallowing user modification. This didnt seem like a good idea, and
the working group agreed. The new draft will change this as well.
The next subject was whether multiple replicas can exist at the same
context root (see slide 2 of the presentation). This would
facilitate copying replica information. Slide 3 shows an alternative.
The working group preferred slide 2.
General Usage Profile Draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-usage-profile-05.txt
The main work done on this draft since the last meeting was to go
through the draft and clean up references. In doing so, two issues
arose. The first involved the status of the locate draft. The status
on this draft is that it went through Last Call, and was reviewed by
the IESG. The IESG had some technical issues with the draft. Bob
Morgan will try and update this draft as soon as possible, probably
one month from now. Kurt thought that it depended on 2247bis, and
that it shouldnt be normative. Since the Usage Profile is
informational, it doesnt need to be held up by this draft.
The other problem was a reference to the taxonomy draft. Note that
CRISP also has a reference to taxonomy. Roland said that he and
Ryan would try and update taxonomy by mid-August. Thus, it was
agreed that the reference to locate could be removed, and the
authors would wait to see if taxonomy was indeed updated by
mid August.
MRM Draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-mrm-02.txt
This draft needs to wait for the InfoMod draft to complete. Then, it
can be updated. Kurt was uncomfortable with the word Mandatory in
the title of the draft because of its implications. It was agreed to
change the title to Replica Management, but to keep the file name
the same for administrative reasons.
Architecture draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-model-08.txt
Uppili sent a note to the chairs providing the following status
(since he was unable to attend). He will be submitting a draft
shortly that in his opinion will be ready for last call.
Jerry Maziarsky and Uppili have discussed the following four types
of edits that must be fixed before the document is ready for
consideration for last call. The first is that the discussions on
different deployment configurations (single vs multi-master) and
consistency models (synchronous vs asynchronous) should be
separated and cleaned up. The second is that the architecture
implies that the DITs of replicating directories have to be
symmetric, but in actuality only the areas under replication need
be. The third is that the document should include discussion on
how nodes are added, deleted or upgraded without adversely
affecting total system up-time, since one of the objectives of
replication is high availability. The final edit is that they need
to clarify whether LDUP scope is only among homogenous DSAs (same
vendor) or it supports heterogeneous DSAs (multi-vendor).
The authors believe that it is heterogeneous.
URP Draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-urp-07.txt
The URP Draft is waiting for InfoMod to complete. Then, Steven will
check all references and submit the document for final group Last Call.
URP Draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-protocol-04.txt
An update of this draft will be issued shortly.
4) Any Other Business
As there was no other business, the meeting concluded.
On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 03:54:25PM -0600, John Strassner wrote: | All right, let's try again after I had some coffee.
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the LDAP Duplication/Replication/Update Protocols Working Group of the IETF. Title : LDAP Client Update Protocol Author(s) : R. Megginson, M. Smith, O. Natkovich, J. Parham Filename : draft-ietf-ldup-lcup-06.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2003-8-27 This document defines the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Client Update Protocol (LCUP). The protocol is intended to allow an LDAP client to synchronize with the content of a directory information tree (DIT) stored by an LDAP server and to be notified about the changes to that content. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-lcup-06.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ldup-lcup-06.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv <at> ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-lcup-06.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft.
RSS Feed4 | |
|---|---|
2 | |
4 | |
2 | |
4 | |
1 | |
2 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
3 | |
1 | |
2 | |
2 | |
2 | |
3 | |
7 | |
20 | |
13 | |
5 | |
7 | |
12 | |
51 | |
45 | |
25 | |
43 | |
10 | |
11 | |
9 | |
6 | |
10 | |
108 | |
3 | |
3 | |
9 | |
26 | |
43 | |
25 | |
29 | |
55 | |
115 | |
12 | |
26 | |
23 | |
40 | |
40 | |
9 | |
56 | |
55 | |
123 | |
20 | |
11 | |
20 | |
20 | |
4 | |
51 | |
68 | |
21 | |
1 | |
19 | |
49 | |
3 | |
4 | |
11 | |
19 | |
26 | |
23 | |
19 | |
17 | |
46 | |
21 | |
3 | |
30 | |
14 | |
25 | |
45 | |
12 | |
2 | |
10 | |
18 | |
5 | |
4 | |
76 | |
20 | |
6 | |
10 | |
17 |
