Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?

[Pete Lynch <pete@jyra.com>]

Fewer angle brackets, but essentially just as verbose. I don't particularly
like either.
But its there. People use it. So I see no reason why the process shouldn't
recognise it.
I'm for it being standards-track.

The XML mapping for X.500 objects can come along later. There probably
already is one, care of DMTF/CIM/DEN. If not, CIM already has an
XML mapping to use as a basis.

Pete

-----Original Message-----
From: Griffith, Adrian, CON, OASD(HA)/TMA <Adrian.Griffith@tma.osd.mil>
To: Helmut Volpers <Helmut.Volpers@mch.sni.de>; 'Russel F. Weiser'
<rweiser@digsigtrust.com>
Cc: Richardson K <k.richardson@MAN05T1.wins.icl.co.uk>;
ietf-ldapext@netscape.com <ietf-ldapext@netscape.com>
Date: 13 November 1998 15:20
Subject: RE: Status of LDIF and Changelog?


>LDIF looks like XML to me.
>
>.02 cents
>
>> ----------
>> From: Russel F. Weiser[SMTP:rweiser@digsigtrust.com]
>> Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 10:03 AM
>> To: Helmut Volpers
>> Cc: Richardson K; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
>> Subject: Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
>>
>> I would like to add my two cents in on this. I believe that there is
>> enough
>> daily use of
>> LDIF  that it should be reconsidered for standard track.
>>
>> cheers
>> RFW
>>
>> Helmut Volpers wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I aggree totally with Keith and because LDIF is used in a lot of
>> > environments for IMPORT and EXPORT it is like a protocol and it should
>> > exist a document which define completely the agreed standard "LDIF".
>> >
>> > Helmut
>> >
>> > Richardson K wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >   I have some general LDIF-related questions. The current LDIF
>> > > technical specification (draft-good-ldap-ldif-01.txt) is now an
>> > > individual contribution although it was previously an ASID work
>> > > item. Presumably this is now destined to be an informational RFC?
>> > > If so, shouldn't we be considering giving LDIF a more formal
>> > > status than this? All of the LDAP servers I know support LDIF to
>> > > some degree and it seems to me that it would better if the
>> > > format used to import/export and apply changes to different
>> > > servers was an agreed standard - interoperability between servers
>> > > goes beyond the basic protocol level.
>> > >   I guess if the LDIF status were to reviewed then the LDIF
>> > > extensions needed to meet certain country's legal/regulatory
>> > > directory requirements (draft-andersen-isss-ws-dir-ldifext-00.txt)
>> > > would also need to be considered - possibly for optional
>> > > implementation on top of a "standard" LDIF?
>> > >   Also, the changelog draft (draft-good-ldap-changelog-00.txt)
>> > > which exploits LDIF expired on October 1st. Is a new draft planned
>> > > or is the changelog proposal now considered to be superseded by the
>> > > planned LDUP replication mechanisms?
>> > >
>> > > Keith Richardson
>> > > ICL, Manchester, UK
>> >
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >   Volpers, Helmut <Helmut.Volpers@mch.sni.de>
>> >   Directory Server Architect
>> >
>> >   Volpers, Helmut
>> >   Directory Server Architect  <Helmut.Volpers@mch.sni.de>
>> >   Otto-Hahn-Ring 6            Fax: +49-89-63645860
>> >   Munich                      Home: +49-89-1576588
>> >   81730                       Work: +49-89-63646713
>> >   Germany                     Netscape Conference Address
>> >                               Netscape Conference DLS Server
>> >   Additional Information:
>> >   Last Name     Volpers
>> >   First Name    Helmut
>> >   Version       2.1
>>
>>
>>
>