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

[Alan Lloyd <Alan.Lloyd@OpenDirectory.com.au>]

X.500 already does some of this without transactions based on the object
/entry model

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	dboreham@netscape.com [SMTP:dboreham@netscape.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, April 16, 1998 1:28 AM
> To:	Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc:	Ed Reed; prasanta@netscape.com; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com;
> Alan.Lloyd@OpenDirectory.com.au
> Subject:	Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-ldapv3-txn-00.txt More ..
> 
> 
> 
> 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). See X.500 1997 attribute updates
> 
> (2) Two entries who's contents need to be kept
> in some strict relationship (eg an entry and its certificate).
	In X.500 an entry can have more than one certficate generally as
aux OCs. so updating both or all is not a problem.

	However, where one wants to manage the dynamic relationships
between attributes types in different entries based on some operational
semantic eg a See Also to a Mail List, then some points should be
observed

	1. This was not put in X.500 because it is a very open area - eg
relationship management - see ISO 10064-3 OSI Management Relationship
management - that was worked on for a few years and based on Managed
Objects - (similar to directory objects) - and being an open area was a
bit operationally complex.. And LDAP development considers X.500 to be
too complex :-)

	2. The real point here is that the LDAP development process may
be completely happy with an extension called a "transaction" and it will
work in some servers in some cases.

	But it wont scale, it wont be universal, it wont be robust and
it wont work if distribution and referrrals are brought into the
picture.

	So IMHO it creates a Limited (environment) Directory Access
Protocol.

	regards alan



> Here are two more above.
> 
> Anyone have any others to add ?
> 
>