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

Re: [ldapext] I-D ACTION:draft-zeilenga-ldap-uuid-00.txt

I concur that this is a strong argument that the ordering matching
rule should be removed from the draft.   Does anyone have any
counter arguments they would like to make?

Kurt

At 09:40 AM 5/13/2003, John McMeeking wrote:




>I don't have a copy of the spec handy.  An Internet Draft that Paul Leach
>wrote (I found a copy at
>http://hegel.ittc.ukans.edu/topics/internet/internet-drafts/draft-l/draft-leach-uuids-guids-01.txt)
> is probably close enough for addressing this question.
>
>The DCE UUID spec allows for various algorithms for generating UUIDs,
>reflected by a set of variant/version bits in the UUID.  Four variants are
>identified in the draft.  One variant includes a timestamp, another uses
>random numbers, and I believe another uses a hash of the timestamp and
>adapter address to prevent folks from determining if UUIDs come from the
>same machine.  The timestamp variant puts the bytes of the timestamp in
>reverse order -- "lo" bytes, "mid" bytes, then "hi" bytes.  So ordering
>even within that variant probably doesn't make sense, and the fact that
>there are multiple variants suggests that ordering in general is not
>meaningful.
>
>
>John  McMeeking
>
>
>
>                                                                                                                                 
>                      "Kurt D.                                                                                                   
>                      Zeilenga"                To:       John McMeeking/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS                                      
>                      <Kurt@OpenLDAP.or        cc:       ldapext@ietf.org                                                        
>                      g>                       Subject:  Re: [ldapext] I-D ACTION:draft-zeilenga-ldap-uuid-00.txt                
>                                                                                                                                 
>                      05/13/2003 10:58                                                                                           
>                      AM                                                                                                         
>                                                                                                                                 
>                                                                                                                                 
>
>
>
>
>At 06:49 AM 5/13/2003, John McMeeking wrote:
>>2.3 'uuidOrderingMatch' Matching Rule
>>
>>Why do you define an ordering matching rule for UUIDs?
>
>For completeness.  UUID ordering was discussed in the DCE
>UUID specification.
>
>I wonder though if the ordering applies to non-DCE UUID
>forms allowed by my draft (I need to buy a copy of the ISO
>specification) and, even if so, whether a DSA can be
>reasonably expected to commit objects in UUID order.
>
>Anyways, I wanted some discussion before deciding whether
>or not to support UUID ordering matching here and that's
>easier to do with a specification for it.
>
>So, I ask, should UUID ordering support stay or be removed
>from this I-D?
>
>Kurt

_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext