Re: Open issues / questions re: Architecture of LDUP

That's what I thought.  

I concur.

That means that the hierarchical subentry information model will need adaptation, in particular to make explicit the association between a replicationAgreement and the two (or more?) replicas which share it (since without name subordination in the hierarchical subentry scheme, the parent association doesn't exist as one of the referenced replicas).

MRM and INFOMOD authors should take note, and voice objections, if any, soon.

Ed
>>> "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email protected]> 03/01/02 04:51PM >>>
At 02:54 PM 2002-03-01, Ed Reed wrote:
>In compiling the latest version of the architecture document (draf-ietf-ldup-model-07.txt, just submitted and copied to the list), I tried to keep track of the things I don't know about what we're doing.  Here's a summary...
>
>1) what administrative model will be used for managing replica topology information?  There are three offerings on the table:  a retracted proposal from me with my ldapSubentry definition, Kurt's Subentry schema entry implies certain things that would come from the X.500 admin model, and Steven Legg's description of the X.500 model as adapted for LDAP for use with a Basic or Simple Access Control models.  I hope we'll arrive at a concensus (quickly) to adopt the work Steven's worked on (since my own offering was shot down out of the gate).

I think there are really only two (or one if your proposal is truly retracted).

The description of the X.500 admin model and description of the
subentry mechanism of that model together describe one approach.
A subsequent revision of the subentry I-D (which Steven and I
co-authored) will likely absorb the generic description of the
X.500 model from Steven's X.500 models I-D.

I recommend this WG to build the replication administrative
model upon the framework provided by the X.500 generic administrative
model.

Kurt


=================
Ed Reed
Reed-Matthews, Inc.
+1 585 624 2402
http://www.Reed-Matthews.COM
Note:  Area code is 585