RE: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals

It is sounding worse already. I'm referring here to the fact that you intend another draft saying HOW the syncing is to be done. Maybe the protocol can stand on its own, but I remember how the WG became fixated with the LCUP cookie. It is starting to sound as if this one will be bigger than "Ben Hur".

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, 29 May 2003 12:26
To: Ramsay, Ron
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RE: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals


At 06:07 PM 5/28/2003, Ramsay, Ron wrote:
>1) LCUP is meant to provide a simple synchronisation tool, similar to persistent search.

I content that LDAP-Sync is meant to provide a simple
synchronization tool, similar to persistent search, as well. The
primary applications being considered for both solutions is the
same: meta-directory, address-books, etc..

>2) Kurt's proposal seeks to define a replication paradigm.

While Jong and I certainly intend to use LDAP Sync as a basis
for single-master replication, this I-D does not attempt to
detail how LDAP Sync might be used for single-master replication.
(We saved that for a future draft.)

I note that this secondary intended use did not impose any
special requirements upon the protocol.  Like LCUP, LDAP-Sync
intends to meet the requirements of "applications intending
to synchronize heterogeneous data stores" [LCUP] and that easily
covers everything that a lightweight single-master replication
application needs from its content synchronization tool.

Now, maybe the difference is that LCUP focuses more on simple
application (e.g., address book) requirements and less on
sophisticated application (e.g. meta-directory) requirements,
but I think we each tried to meet the requirements of both
simple and sophisticated applications content synchronization
needs.

Kurt