RE: Is State-based LDUP needed?

Hi all,

I, as well, have no objections to answers of "yes" to both questions.

Regards,
Tim Hahn

Internet: [email protected]
Internal: Timothy Hahn/Endicott/IBM@IBMUS or IBMUSM00(HAHNT)
phone: 607.752.6388     tie-line: 8/852.6388
fax: 607.752.3681





"Steven Legg" <[email protected]>
Sent by: [email protected]
01/30/2002 06:05 PM
Please respond to steven.legg

 
        To:     "'Ed Reed'" <[email protected]>
        cc:     <[email protected]>
        Subject:        RE: Is State-based LDUP needed?

 



Ed,

Ed Reed wrote:
> I'm okay with answering it "yes" to both your questions, and 
> in so doing
> relegating all references state-based replication to the dust bin.
> 
> I would further assert that unless at least two directory 
> service implementors
> object, that the current "concensus" of "yes" to both will 
> prevail.  I don't think
> the plans of only one party to implement the option should 
> result it retaining
> it in the face of the (a) added complexity, and (b) transient 
> inconsistencies
> that would result.

Okay with me. I will wait a week to see if there is any dissent, and
if not, I'll rip out all the references to state-based implementations
from URP.

Cheers,
Steven

> 
> Ed
> 
> =================
> Ed Reed
> Reed-Matthews, Inc.
> +1 585 624 2402
> http://www.Reed-Matthews.COM
> Note:  Area code is 585
> 
> >>> "Steven Legg" <[email protected]> 01/29/02 05:28PM >>>
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> Timothy Hahn wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Steven Legg wrote:
> >>
> >> I think it boils down to two questions.
> >>
> >> Q1: Do we insist that replication primitives are always sent in
> >> CSN order per replica ID ?
> >>
> >> Q2: Do we insist that superseded primitives are propagated anyway ?
> >
> > My opinion on these two questions are:
> >
> > Q1: I vote "yes" to this one.
> >
> > Q2: I could go either way on this.  It would seem we would be "more
> correct,
> > more of the time" if we insisted that superseded primitives are
> propagated -
> > at the expense of a little more information being sent 
> during replication
> > sessions.  However, it would appear that LDUP will work 
> either way (after
> > all, "eventual consistency" is what is required).  Thus, I 
> would allow
> this
> > as an implementation choice - i.e. superseded primitives 
> MAY (or MAY NOT)
> be
> > propagated.  I also think that it is in the best interests 
> of all involved
> if
> > the update reconciliation procedures draft (or the update 
> replication
> > protocol draft) points out the issues involved if 
> superseded primitives
> are
> > NOT sent.  (It seems a shame that this analysis would only 
> be documented
> in
> > the mailing list archives).
> 
> I can expand the section in URP on superseded primitives to 
> point out the
> issues if the consensus on Q2 is "no". If the consensus is 
> "yes" then I
> will instead be taking out all the provisions for state-based
> implementations.
> 
> Regards,
> Steven
> 
> 
>