RE: Draft LDUP Meeting Minutes
John Strassner <[email protected]> Sat, 9 Aug 2003 15:54:25 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_000_01C35EC0.CC9FEAB0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C35EC0.CC9FEAB0" ------_=_NextPart_001_01C35EC0.CC9FEAB0 Content-Type: text/plain All right, let's try again after I had some coffee. ;-) -----Original Message----- From: John Strassner [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 1:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Draft LDUP Meeting Minutes Importance: High Sorry for the delay in getting these out, I had a family emergency. Please look them over and send any corrections/additions asap, and I'll forward to the IETF. thanks and kind regards, John John Strassner Chief Strategy Officer Intelliden Corporation 90 South Cascade Avenue Colorado Springs, CO 80903 USA phone: +1.719.785.0648 FAX: +1.719.785.0644 email: [email protected] ------_=_NextPart_001_01C35EC0.CC9FEAB0 Content-Type: text/html <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4926.2500" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: "> <DIV><SPAN class=479345221-09082003><FONT face=Arial size=2>All right, let's try again after I had some coffee. ;-)</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> John Strassner [mailto:[email protected]] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, August 09, 2003 1:39 PM<BR><B>To:</B> [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> Draft LDUP Meeting Minutes<BR><B>Importance:</B> High<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV><SPAN class=575213619-09082003><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sorry for the delay in getting these out, I had a family emergency. Please look them over and send any corrections/additions asap, and I'll forward to the IETF.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=575213619-09082003><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=575213619-09082003><FONT face=Arial size=2>thanks and kind regards,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=575213619-09082003><FONT face=Arial size=2>John</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><BR><BR>John Strassner<BR>Chief Strategy Officer<BR>Intelliden Corporation<BR>90 South Cascade Avenue<BR>Colorado Springs, CO 80903 USA<BR>phone: +1.719.785.0648<BR> FAX: +1.719.785.0644<BR>email: [email protected]<BR> </FONT> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C35EC0.CC9FEAB0-- ------_=_NextPart_000_01C35EC0.CC9FEAB0 Content-Type: text/plain; name="57ldupmeetingminutes.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="57ldupmeetingminutes.txt" LDAP Duplication/Replication/Update Protocols WG (ldup) Tuesday, July 15, at 1300-1400 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D CHAIRS: Chris Apple <[email protected]> John Strassner <[email protected]>=20 Minutes taken by: John Strassner The meeting was run according to the posted agenda. The meeting minutes therefore mirror the agenda topics. LDAP Duplication/Replication/Update Protocols WG (ldup) Tuesday, July 15 at 1300-1400=20 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D CHAIRS: Chris Apple <[email protected]> John Strassner <[email protected]> AGENDA: 1) Agenda Additions? No additions were asked for, so the meeting proceeded according to the = agenda. 2) LCUP WG Last Call & Status http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-lcup-05.txt No further discussion occurred on this document. 3) Remaining WG Documents InfoMod Draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-infomod-07.txt Rick Huber presented slides describing the progress of this draft. This presentation reflects the new group of authors that are=20 picking up the work. The authors presented a number of questions to the working group involving various attributes defined in the draft. The first was whether the two RootDSA attributes are really useful. They were originally defined to help discovery, but the classes all have unique names, so this need is no longer crucial. Steven Legg proposed removing them, and people in the meeting agreed. No one=20 asked to have them left in the draft. Thus, since the MRM draft will by definition discover any problems with these or other similar=20 attributes not being defined in the draft, it was decided to remove these for the next revision of the draft. Other attributes =96 attributeExclusionFilter, = attributeInclusionFilter, secondsToWaitDefault, and secondsToWait2 =96 were defined as=20 disallowing user modification. This didn=92t seem like a good idea, and the working group agreed. The new draft will change this as well. The next subject was whether multiple replicas can exist at the same context root (see slide 2 of the presentation). This would=20 facilitate copying replica information. Slide 3 shows an alternative. The working group preferred slide 2. General Usage Profile Draft = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-usage-profile-05.txt= The main work done on this draft since the last meeting was to go through the draft and clean up references. In doing so, two issues arose. The first involved the status of the locate draft. The status on this draft is that it went through Last Call, and was reviewed by the IESG. The IESG had some technical issues with the draft. Bob=20 Morgan will try and update this draft as soon as possible, probably one month from now. Kurt thought that it depended on 2247bis, and=20 that it shouldn=92t be normative. Since the Usage Profile is=20 informational, it doesn=92t need to be held up by this draft. The other problem was a reference to the taxonomy draft. Note that CRISP also has a reference to taxonomy. Roland said that he and Ryan would try and update taxonomy by mid-August. Thus, it was agreed that the reference to locate could be removed, and the authors would wait to see if taxonomy was indeed updated by=20 mid August. MRM Draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-mrm-02.txt This draft needs to wait for the InfoMod draft to complete. Then, it can be updated. Kurt was uncomfortable with the word =93Mandatory=94 in the title of the draft because of its implications. It was agreed to change the title to =93Replica Management=94, but to keep the file name the same for administrative reasons. Architecture draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-model-08.txt Uppili sent a note to the chairs providing the following status=20 (since he was unable to attend). He will be submitting a draft=20 shortly that in his opinion will be ready for last call.=20 Jerry Maziarsky and Uppili have discussed the following four types of edits that must be fixed before the document is ready for=20 consideration for last call. The first is that the discussions on=20 different deployment configurations (single vs multi-master) and consistency models (synchronous vs asynchronous) should be=20 separated and cleaned up. The second is that the architecture=20 implies that the DITs of replicating directories have to be=20 symmetric, but in actuality only the areas under replication need=20 be. The third is that the document should include discussion on=20 how nodes are added, deleted or upgraded without adversely=20 affecting total system up-time, since one of the objectives of=20 replication is high availability. The final edit is that they need to clarify whether LDUP scope is only among homogenous DSAs (same vendor) or it supports heterogeneous DSAs (multi-vendor).=20 The authors believe that it is heterogeneous.=09 URP Draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-urp-07.txt The URP Draft is waiting for InfoMod to complete. Then, Steven will check all references and submit the document for final group Last Call. URP Draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ldup-protocol-04.txt An update of this draft will be issued shortly. 4) Any Other Business As there was no other business, the meeting concluded. ------_=_NextPart_000_01C35EC0.CC9FEAB0--