RE: Operations crossing replication contexts

Chris,

Christopher Apple wrote:
> Strongly agree also. I can't see any real benefit to the folks
> who actually have to use LDUP implementations to have to cope
> with two ways of handling LDAPv3 replication depending on
> how many contexts per server they need.
> 
> Steven: when could you have a revised I-D posted to the list
> plus some bullets indicating changes implied for other documents?

I can submit a revised URP draft with the changes already agreed
during the last call period within a week or so, but for the changes
required to properly support partial replication, I think the best
approach is for me to write up the architectural details of what
I've been working on and post that to the list. I can do that in
parts over the next month. Once everyone has had a chance to think
about it we can decide what amendments need to be made to which
documents, including further changes to URP.

Regards,
Steven

> 
> Chris Apple
> Program Manager - Integration Services
> United Messaging Inc.
> <http://www.unitedmessaging.com>
> <mailto:[email protected]> 
> (V) +1 610 425 2860
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Smith [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 9:14 AM
> To: Timothy Hahn
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Operations crossing replication contexts
> 
> 
> 
> Timothy Hahn wrote:
> > 
> > Steven,
> > 
> > I really feel that LDUP should address the issues involved 
> in a single
> > server handling multiple replication contexts.  If we don't 
> I think we
> > would be miss the mark by providing a replication model 
> that would not
> > meet the needs of LDAP directory deployments.
> > 
> > I agree that providing this implies changes to all the replication
> > drafts - with exception, perhaps, of the requirements.  And 
> since this
> > probably has implications on the LDUP update protocol as well as the
> > information model, it seems to me we should take the time 
> to build it
> > right now rather than have to build a whole new "version" to support
> > mulitple replication contexts in a single server.
> 
> I strongly agree.  A directory server that supports only one 
> replication
> context, presumably for one contiguous subtree for the DIT, 
> will not be
> usable in many situations.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Smith
> Netscape
>