RE: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals

I'm simply the devil's advocate. Is the purpose to synchronise meta-directories? I don't know.

Surely the real point is that you (Kurt) seem to have admitted that it is under-spacified, or potentially under-specified, by referring to the draft that would say how it is done. This seems to reflect LDUP in miniature. That attempt failed, so show why yours won't. Or, to cut the Gaudion knot, why should the WG go down that path (again).

Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, 29 May 2003 14:23
To: [email protected]
Cc: Ramsay, Ron; [email protected]
Subject: RE: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals


At 08:48 PM 5/28/2003, Chris Apple wrote:
>Does this mean that you agree with Ron's point? Or not?

I don't dispute Ron's point that LCUP (draft-ietf-ldup-lcup)
is meant to provide a simple synchronization tool.  However, I
added that I believe that LDAP-Sync (draft-zeilenga-ldup-sync)
is also meant to provide a simple synchronization tool.  I'll
leave it to Ron to say whether he concurs with my additional
point.



>Chris Apple - Principal Architect
>
>DSI Consulting, Inc.
>
>mailto:[email protected]
>
>http://www.dsi-consulting.com
>
>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..