[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
I wouldn't mind having an LDIF standard, but IMHO it would be nice to
indicate that XML was the preferred way going forward. How many ways do we
need to describe attribute/value pairs?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Lynch [mailto:pete@jyra.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 7:49 AM
> To: Griffith, Adrian, CON, OASD(HA)/TMA; Helmut Volpers; 'Russel F.
> Weiser'
> Cc: Richardson K; ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
> Subject: Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
>
>
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>