Re: Changelog entries draft. Do not seem to find it.

[ggood@netscape.com (Gordon Good)]

"Salter, Thomas A" wrote:

> I think the changelog draft should be standardized.  It provides a simple,
> but useful feature.  It's been implemented by more that one server and
> probably lots of clients.
>
> Perhaps it should include a disclaimer that it provides an interim solution
> until LDUP/LCUP mechanisms are defined and implemented.
>
> Accountability can be provided by adding createTimestamp and creatorsName to
> the changeLog entries.  These are implied anyway, since change log records
> are defined as though they are entries in the directory, and all directory
> entries MAY contain these operational attributes.

I agree, with the caveat that supporting an LDAP-accessible changelog exactly as
described in the internet draft may be very difficult in an environment
featuring multi-master replication.

As James Benedict mentioned, it would be very helpful to have an inventory of
planned and existing applications that use changelogs. I've heard several
mentioned on this mailing list - are there others?

I have a strong suspicion that these applications will fall into one of a small
number of classes, and that some of these classes may be better served by a
newer client synchronization protocol that combines ideas from our Persistent
Search draft, Innosoft's Triggered Search draft, and Microsoft's Dirsync draft.
A first draft of that was posted to the ietf-lcup@netscape.com and
ietf-ldup@imc.org mailing lists yesterday.

-Gordon