Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-ldapv3-txn-00.txt More ..

[dboreham@netscape.com (David Boreham)]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> I have not advocated a transaction model for replicas; I think it's more
> useful to base replicas on a "loose consistency" model.
>
> Where I think transactions are needed is between DSAs involved in
> operations like tree renames or transfer of tree responsibility,
> where a glitch at the wrong time can lead to a permanently inconsistent state.

Perhaps a list of operations where transactions
are considered useful is needed ?

The document mentions two:

(1) maintaining a counter in an entry (eg software
license count).
(2) Two entries who's contents need to be kept
in some strict relationship (eg an entry and its certificate).

Here are two more above.

Anyone have any others to add ?