Re: LDAP V3 REPLICATION REQUIREMENTS DRAFT [Auditability]

["Russel Weiser" <RWEISER@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim 
I agree that that seperating the four area out would be good, 
but I have a strong opinion that they should all be worked on 
in this group. 

If you would take the Draft and Number things into 1-4  I'll 
reorder things for it tomorrow .

cheers 
RFW

  
>>> Tim Howes <howes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 04/14 5:35 PM >>>
The underlying problem here, and what's behind many of
the issues John is raising, seems to be that it's not clear what
we are proposing to standardize. In the current document,
there are requirements relating to all four of the following
things which could be standardized.

- The overall LDAP replication model. Like, what can
you replicate, when can you replicate it, what gets sent
during an update, etc.

- The means by which two or more LDAP servers can
synchronize their data. Like, the protocol two servers use
to propagate updates.

- The means by which a replication agreement between
two or more LDAP servers can be created, deleted, or
modified. Like, defining attributes representing replication
agreements, where they live, what they mean, etc.

- The means by which an existing LDAP replication
environment can be monitored and/or managed. Like,
defining attributes representing the state of replication,
where they live, what it means to change them, etc.

There are also some requirements that relate to the local
administrative policies that implementations must
make available.

I don't think it's a bad idea to write down requirements
relating to all of these things, but I do think it's a bad idea
to mix them together. Mixing them together makes it hard
for us to say, for example, that we are going to tackle the
model and the protocol first, and leave the management
and administration tasks for later.

Also, for all of these requirements, we should ask ourselves
whether the requirement is needed to provide interoperability
or not. If so, in what area? If not, we should not worry
about it.                                -- Tim

John Merrells wrote:

>      Auditability - Each copy of a replica MUST maintain a history of
>      who it has replicated with and who has replicated with it.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the reasoning for this requirement.  Is this
> another administration / managability feature?
>
> John
>
> --
> John Merrells
> Netscape Communications
> Directory Server
> Software Engineer
>
> http://people.netscape.com/merrells