Re: WG Last Call on URP I-D

On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 07:34:41PM +1100, Steven Legg wrote:
| 
| Ryan,
| 
| Ryan Moats wrote:
| > What I seemed to miss was the discussion of primitive generation
| > with respect to attribute types, attribute subtypes and 
| > attribute options.
| > Specifically there was no clarification
| > 
| > - whether attribute subtypes and options were or were not 
| > supported.  I
| >   believe absense of a restriction means they are, but others 
| > could read
| >   absense of a restriction to mean they are not.
| 
| The absence of any clear direction in URP on subtyping issues is an
| oversight. I had been assuming that attribute subtyping is basically
| ignored by URP, as is the case for updating in general and for X.500
| replication updates in particular. I shall add words to the URP
| document to the effect that attribute types in a subtype hierarchy
| are treated as distinct and unrelated types by URP.
| 
| Attribute options are a different matter since RFC 2251 isn't clear
| about how this form of subtyping applies to updates. For example,
| does a request to delete the cn attribute also delete the cn;foobar
| attribute ? If I can assume that the answer is no then I can just
| say that attribute types with options are also treated as distinct
| and unrelated types by URP. The alternative answer will require more
| extensive changes.

Hmm, I would think that principle of least surprise would say that
deleting cn wouls also delete cn;foobar.  I'd like to hear what
others think of course.

| Regardless of the answer, the replication primitives have a type
| parameter which is described as an attribute type. In the meantime
| I will revise this to be an attribute description.

Thanks.

| 
| > 
| > - whether or not dsaOperation types could be replicated.  Since the
| >   requirements draft states this as a MUST NOT (req G10), the lack of
| >   a discussion in the primitive generation portion of the document
| >   disturbs me.
| 
| URP doesn't go into any detail about what is or isn't part of the area
| of replication since that is in the scope of another LDUP document and
| that document isn't yet ready to go to last call. URP just has a blanket
| statement that replication primitives are generated only for directory
| contents that are covered by the replication agreement, so it will
| automatically conform to whatever the final LDUP model document says.
| If the model draft says that dsaOperation types are never part of a
| replication agreement then URP will never replicate that kind of
| operational attribute and requirement G10 will be satisfied.
|

I *think* I may have found the blanket statement:

(in section 5.2, first para, last sentence)

"No replication primitives are generated for entries or entry contents
that are outside the scope of the replication agreement." 

Is this indeed it?  If so, I missed it the first time through and
I'd suggest that it be made its own paragraph (along with the supporting
text of 5.3) to make it more obvious.

Ryan