Re: Correction to Last Call posting

This message mostly reiterates previously raised issues.

Section 3:
  Interoperability among directories using LDUP replication may be
  limited for implementations that add semantics beyond those specified 
  by the LDAP core documents (RFC 2251-2256, 2829, 2830).

I note that Interoperability among directories using LDUP replication
may also be limited for implementations which implement different
subsets of the semantics defined in the LDAP "core" specification.
For example, one implementation may support subtyping another not.
Another may require ;binary for some standard track attribute
while another disallows ;binary for same.  As an alternative to
adding a clarification to the statement (as I would prefer),
removing the statement (as it doesn't place a requirement upon
LDUP) would be acceptable.

G9. Sentence 1.
  LDAP replication SHOULD support replication of
  directoryOperation and distributedOperation attribute
  types defined in standards track LDAP extensions.

I note that Dynamic Directory Services Extensions
(RFC 2589) standard track may be quite difficult to
support.

G9. Sentence 2.
  Future standards track specifications SHOULD include
  a "Replication Considerations" section which indicates
  how and whether the new feature operates in a replicated
  environment.

I note that this is not a requirement upon LDUP but a
requirement upon future standard track specifications
to detail how to operate in yet specified replicated
environment.  I believe this should be reworded without
use of a RFC 2119 imperative or other wording implying
this is a requirement which future specifications need
to consider.  If such a requirement were needed to be
stated, it should be stated in a document (BCP?)
detailing guidelines to developers of LDAP extensions.
I note that such a guideline is under development.

M5.  LDAP replication MUST NOT require all copies of the replicated
information to be complete copies of the replicated object.  The model
MUST support Partial Replicas.

I assume this applies to copies, not to the original.
That is, I assume that LDAP replication MAY require
some master (if not all masters) to hold a complete
instance of the object.  Some clarification here may
be appropriate.

Security Considerations:
  "As noted in Section 3, security may be impacted..."

Section 3 makes no statement about security.  It makes a
statement about interoperability.

Editorial comments:
  The RFC 2119 paragraph should be moved from the Abstract
  to end of section 1 or added to section 2, which details
  terminology used.

  "privacy" (S6,S7) should be replaced with "confidentiality".