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

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 10:45 AM 10/21/2004, David Boreham wrote:
>>In LDAP, clients may presume server is acting in accordance
>>with the X.500 data model.  If the server is unable or
>>unwilling to do that, then it should not provide service.
>
>I see, I think you've answered my question: this
>feaure should not be implemented by servers that
>are participating in a multimaster replication mechanism
>with respect to the entry being modified (unless the
>server does something unusual to deliver the
>required consistency guarantees such as using 2-phase
>commit).

It's my view that servers which are 'participating in
a multimaster replication mechanism' are not LDAP servers.
LDAP servers, aside from communicating using LDAP PDUs,
act in accordance with X.500.  While the servers you
refer might communicate using LDAP PDUs, they are not
acting in accordance with X.500 and hence, in my view,
are not LDAP servers.

>It might be worth noting this in the draft, for those
>who might ask this question in the future.

I think its sufficient to specify that LDAP servers
are to act in accordance with X.500.  This I-D does
so by incorporating [Roadmap].

That said, I think it would be good to note to the
community the harm that truly non-optional introduction
of MMR might have on existing directory applications,
to reiterate to implementors that LDAP servers are to
act in accordance with X.500, and encourage those
who desire a different service model to design and
specify a system that offers it.  That system could
be based on LDAP, but if so, it should engineered
as a truly optional extension to LDAP.

(For those who don't grok the terms "truly optional"
or "truly non-optional", I refer you to discussion
of the "MAY" keyword in RFC 2119).

Kurt 


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