RE: Replica Management - subtreespecification attribute
"Steven Legg" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Rick, Richard V Huber wrote: > We noted in a previous email that, to allow overlapping areas of > replication, we feel that an area of replication is defined by a > replicaSubentry. The replicaSubentry defines the boundary of the area > via the subtreespecification attribute. Note that a subtree specification identifies a collection of entries, but not a subset of the attributes within them. That is, it specifies the sparseness of a partial replica. Something else in addition to the subtree specification is required to specify the fractionalness of a partial replica, i.e. the attributeExclusionFilter and attributeInclusionFilter attributes. Regarding terminology, you appear to be using "area of replication" to mean some part, possibly but not necessarily all, of the information in a replication context. Thus a single replication context can have more than one area of replication within its scope. This is what I assume it means, however areas of replication (a.k.a replication areas) are not defined in the architecture and model drafts and tend to be used as synonyms for "replication context". > Because a subtreespecification may need to be shared across a > number of > subentries (e.g. all the replicaSubentries that refer to a common area > of replication), we would like to have a single subtreespecification > that can be referenced from multiple subentries. Accordingly, we > would like to change the subentry objectclass to use > subtreeSpecificationDN and allow the subtree specification to > be stored > as a separate entry which can be referenced as needed. This separate (sub?)entry would contain the attributeExclusionFilter and attributeInclusionFilter attributes as well. An alternative to a subtreeSpecificationDN attribute would be to place the replica subentries subordinate to the (sub)entry describing their area of replication. Either way, I would support making such a change to the information model. Regards, Steven > > This may be useful in other cases where a single subtreespecification > needs to be used consistently in several places. > > Rick Huber > John McMeeking > Ryan Moats >