RE: WG Charter Proposal v2

Mark,

Sorry for being obtuse. You used the word extension in
relation to the LDAP models.

"...an argument could be made that any form of 
multimaster replication requires an extension of
the LDAP models..."

I was looking for some clarification about what you
could have meant by extension in this context.

The suggestion below seems quite reasonable for editors to
consider during their final revisions of LDUP documents.

Chris Apple - Principal Architect

DSI Consulting, Inc.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dsi-consulting.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Mark C Smith
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 3:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: WG Charter Proposal v2



Chris Apple wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]] 
> ...
> Unfornately, I doubt I'll be able to produce an I-D before the
> charter revision cutoff.  However, I would hope most LDUP'ers
> understand the LDAP service model issue.  It's been discussed
> repeatedly on this list.
> 
> Kurt
> 
> CWA> I'm sure they do understand this issue. Also, I think that
>      Mark Smith used a word in his original reply to this portion
>      of the thread. The implication that it may be possible to
>      to address the complexity of multi-master replication
>      with an extension to rather than a revision of the core
>      service model. Perhaps Mark can elaborate a bit to clarify
>      his intended meaning?

I do not remember using any magic word. But in my opinion it is 
sufficient for the LDUP documents to specify what impact deployment of 
LDUP replication might have on LDAP clients and to specify how clients 
can, if neccessary, discover that LDUP replication is in use.

-Mark