FW: Status of LDIF and Changelog?

[Erik Andersen <ERA@FL.DK>]

I first sent this on the LDUP list, but I now realise that the discussion
was on the LDAPEXT list.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Erik Andersen 
> Sent:	20. november 1998 17:12
> To:	'LDUP'
> Subject:	RE: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
> 
> Thre has been some discussions on the status of LDIF resently on this
> mailing list started by the attached note from Keith Richardson from ICL.
> 
> Some while ago I put onto the server a proposal for an extended LDIF
> (draft-andersen-isss-ws-dir-ldifext-00.txt). Very few have commented on
> this proposal and I am now in doubt on how the progress the work, as the
> proposed format will be used in Denmark, and probably in UK, for telephone
> number exchange among service provider and to third parties. One posiblity
> is to progress it through IETF-LDUP, and I would like an reaction to this.
> 
> Compared to the basic LDIF it has the following characteristics:
> 
> 1. It does not assume that a single system is the master for all
> information about a particular object. It is based on much the same
> philosophy as the "Related Entry" work item being progressed within
> ISO/IEC and ITU-T.
> 
> 2. It does not assume that it is possible always to assign distinguished
> names that are agreed across systems.
> 
> 3. It does not assume that a participating system is a standard directory
> system, but can be a database system.
> 
> 4. It allows minimum amount of data to be transferred, which is essential
> when transmitting a file consisting of millions or records. Each extra
> byte per record adds up to several Mbytes.
> 
> 5. It can use other character sets than UTF8. This is esential in
> non-English speaking countries wanting to transmit national characters in
> single bytes.
> 
> The extended LDIF is compatible with LDIF in the sense that by using it in
> a defined way, it produces a basic LDIF stream.
> 
> Erik Andersen, Consultant, Direct Tel. (+45) 3945 0736, Mobile: (+45) 2097
> 1490
>  E-mail: era@fl.dk
> 
> FISCHER & LORENZ A/S
> Tuborg Parkvej 10, DK-2900 Hellerup, Copenhagen, Denmark  
> Tel. (+45) 3945 0700, Fax (+45) 3945 0777, E-mail: fl@fl.dk, Internet:
> http://www.fl.dk
> 
> CEN/ISSS Directory Workshop chairman, Internet:
> http://www.cenorm.be/isss/Workshop/DIR/Default.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Richardson K [SMTP:k.richardson@man05t1.wins.icl.co.uk]
> Sent:	13. november 1998 11:06
> To:	ERA@FL.DK
> Subject:	Status of LDIF and Changelog?
> 
> 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