RE: naming contexts

At 09:50 PM 2001-12-06, Steven Legg wrote:
>I don't believe there is any way we can define multimaster replication
>such that we remain 100% consistent with the existing definition
>for a naming context. Either we violate the assumption that the DIT
>is partititioned into disjoint naming contexts, or we violate the
>requirement that the superior of a context prefix entry is in a
>different master DSA.

Guess I would prefer to violate the latter, not the former.

>Determining naming contexts with respect to a
>primary satisfies the former but not the latter.

Concur.