[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?

Hi Gordon,

> The timing of this thread is good!
> 
> The plan I have, as document author, is to move the current LDIF draft
> forward as a proposed standard. I apologize for not getting this done
> sooner, but other things have gotten in the way. Here are some things to
> think about:
> 
> - 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 think LDIF is widely used and need to be recognised.

> 
> - 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 part needs to be discussed and should be in another document.

> - 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.
> 

I would prefer it to move to the proposed standard direction. It's a simple
way to have multi-vendor consumer-initiated replication until the LDAP
replication standards are out. 


Ludovic Poitou
Sun microsystems
 
> How does this sound?  Are there any serious objections to these plans?
>