[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
- To: Gordon Good <ggood@netscape.com>
- Subject: Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
- From: Sanjay.Jain@software.com (Sanjay Jain)
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:47:11 -0800
- Cc: Pete Lynch <pete@jyra.com>, "Griffith, Adrian, CON, OASD(HA)/TMA" <Adrian.Griffith@tma.osd.mil>, Helmut Volpers <Helmut.Volpers@mch.sni.de>, "'Russel F. Weiser'" <rweiser@digsigtrust.com>, Richardson K <k.richardson@MAN05T1.wins.icl.co.uk>, ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
- Organization: Software.Com
- References: <000f01be0f1d$2da6ffe0$b12aa8c0@jyra10.jyra.com> <364C7076.7B596325@netscape.com>
- Resent-date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:48:03 -0800 (PST)
- Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
- Resent-message-id: <"Q0wbE1.0.xy4.Xx7Js"@glacier>
- Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com
Gordon Good wrote:
> - The changelog draft, in my opinion, should become an informational RFC. The
> LDUP group is not planning to use LDAP-accessible changelogs in its
> multi-master replication work.
>
> How does this sound? Are there any serious objections to these plans?
I would prefer that changelog draft is moved forward as a proposed
standard. It provides a simple consumer-initiated replication mechanism
at least till the time we have real LDAP replication standards. I think, today
there is a need to replicate accross multi-vendor directory servers and
without such a standard in place, it is not possible to achieve that.
sanjay