Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?

[George Powers <george@packeteer.com>]

>- Is proposed standard the way to go?  I think so. Having LDIF on standards
>track doesn't preclude other formats (like an XML DTD for directory
entries)
>coming into existence. Instead, it's an acknoweledgement that many
>implementations already support LDIF, and will help ensure interoperability
>among implementations that choose to support LDIF.

Yes, I agree.  Most implementations started with some derivative of the
UMich source code, and it's a sure and certain thing to bless this de facto
standard.

>- What about the LDIF extensions draft
>(http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-andersen-isss-ws-dir-ldifext-
00.txt)
>that Erik Andersen has written? Erik's draft addresses three main issues:
it
>allows "ownership" of attribute values to be described in an LDIF file (to
>allow merging of data from multiple organizations), it allows for mapping
>between attribute names, and is more compact. The first two features enable
>LDIF to be used to perform certain metadirectory operations. The last is a
>feature which is orthogonal to the other features. In my opinion, these are
>interesting and potentially valuable features, but I would not want to see
them
>become part of the basic LDIF specification. Doing so would unnecessarily
>burden implementors who do not require these features.


This is not common practice yet, and therefore should not hinder adoption of
the basic LDIF standard.