Re: [ldapext] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-sermersheim-ldap-csn-02.txt

[Howard Chu <hyc@highlandsun.com>]

John McMeeking wrote:
> Howard Chu <hyc@highlandsun.com> wrote on 11/04/2005 03:09:56 PM:
>
> > A couple of concerns were raised about using fractional seconds in the
> > timestamp portion of the CSN. Mainly, that they do not always increase
> > monotonically; some systems will decrement while adjusting the clock
> > (e.g. using NTP?). The draft-ietf-ldup-model document specifically
> > excluded fractional seconds; I think we need to continue with that
> > restriction here.
>
> Is eliminating fractional seconds from the CSN the way to address the
> problem of decreasing CSNs?  Would it be more appropriate to require that
> any CSN generator generate strictly increasing sequences of CSNs with
> respect to the time and timeCount components?  I believe there is a similar
> requirement for the DCE UUID time-based variants.

Yes, we probably need an explicit statement to this effect, since that 
is the actual concern. Eliminating fractional seconds helps simplify 
conformance to this requirement, otherwise there is no bound on the 
resolution necessary to meet the requirement.

> On that note, this document doesn't say much about the use or behavior of
> the timeCount field, though some use is implied by the ordering rule.

Yes, I suggested to Jim that we should provide examples / use cases for 
these fields but there wasn't time to get those in.
> John  McMeeking

--
  -- Howard Chu
  Chief Architect, Symas Corp.  http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun        http://highlandsun.com/hyc
  OpenLDAP Core Team            http://www.openldap.org/project/

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