[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: [ldapext] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-zeilenga-ldap-incr-00.txt
At 10:30 AM 10/22/2004, David Boreham wrote:
>>>Can you cite (or quote) a section from X.500 that backs up this assertion ?
>>
>>Though not definitive, you might also consider David
>>Chadwick's "Understand X.500"
>> <http://www.isi.salford.ac.uk/staff/dwc/Version.Web/Contents.htm>.
>>It gives some rationale as to why the ITU selected the
>>(single) master copy scheme was for the Directory. If
>>you want something definitive, I suggest you read X.525 and
>>sections of X.501 describing the DSA Model.
>
>Thanks. I wasn't really looking for tutorial advice,
>more a specific reference (like section so and so, subsection
>whatever, where it says the following : ...).
>
>Surely you must be able to come up with a hard
>reference to back up your assertion that multi master
>replication is fundamentally incompatible with X.500 and
>hence LDAP ?
Yes, but since I don't see any need to rehash prior
discussions regarding this fundamental aspect of X.500,
I choose to offer only general references at this time.
I hope we can avoid rehashing this. I think consensus is
pretty clear on the matter. X.500 specifications and
implementations presume that one and only one DSA is
authoritative for an entry held in the Directory.
However, that said, I note that this I-D may not be
subjected to any IETF consensus review. It may be
directly submitted to the RFC Editor.
So, if folks think the X.500/LDAP specifications are
not adequately clear in this area, I would suggestion
that the matter be raised to the LDAPBIS WG so that
they may establish consensus in this area and reflect
that consensus in the revised LDAP TS.
Kurt
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
Ldapext@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext