comments on draft-zeilenga-ldup-sync (was Re: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals)

Well I've re-looked at these both and I've got concerns/questions about
each of them.  This first piece of mail addresses one process concern
(in two parts) and a technical concern that I have about
draft-zeilenga-ldup-sync-02:

Since the working group decided that replication protocols
should be experimental and this document is standards track, I'm
uncomfortable with the inclusion of "lightweight master-slave replication" 
in the possible use list.

Kurt has pointed out:

| "When I said:
| >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.)
| 
| my point was that specification how a future LDAP Relication
| specification might use LDAP Sync is beyond the scope of
| draft-zeilenga-ldup-sync as draft-zeilenga-ldup-sync is
| intended to be a complete technical specification of the
| LDAP Content Sychronization Operation (a LDAPv3 client update
| protocol).  Jong and I do believe draft-zeilenga-ldup-sync
| is complete."

This is all well and good, but if a standards track document is going
to include "lightweight master-slave replication" as a possible use,
then said document should make reference to how it meets or does not
meet RFC 3384.

I could also live with that possible use being removed and introduced
in a self-contained experimental draft.

My technical concern is that this draft does not discuss the
implications of each client having an open connection to the server.
Sockets are one of the more precious OS resources, and so there needs to
be an applicability statement about this as well as a discussion
of what happens what a server terminates a persistent connection when
conserving resources.

Ryan