naming contexts

It seems to me that the definition of a "naming context"
in LDAP/X.500 makes little sense in the face of multi-master
replication.  A LDAP/X.500 naming context is subtree of
entries held in a single master DSA.

Consider three DSAs A, B, C where
	A masters subtree X
	B masters subtree Y
	C masters subtrees X and Y, and
	Subtrees X and Y are adjacent.

If A and B are masters and C is a shadow of each,
LDAP/X.500 says that
	A holds context X, B holds context Y, and
	C holds contexts X and Y.

If C masters X and Y and A and B are shadows,
LDAP/X.500 says that:
	A, B, C holds context X

If A, B, and C master the subtrees they hold, which
contexts does LDUP say they hold?

I can only find one reasonable way to answer this question,
it requires each entry to have held by one and only one
"primary" master DSA and defining the LDUP naming context
as a subtree of entries held in a single "primary" master
DSA.  I believe this same solution can be used to define
other terms and to detail directory models for multi-master
replication which maps reasonable well onto the X.500 models.

I recommend the WG consider defining the LDUP multi-master
replication directory models such that, for any particular
entry, there is only one "primary" master DSA and zero or
more "secondary" master DSAs.   Otherwise, defining the
models consistent with the LDAP/X.500 models will be
extremely difficult.

Kurt