Done | | Submit I-D on LDAPv3 Directory Replication Requirements. |
Done | | Submit Internet-Draft on LDAPv3 Replication Information
Model |
Done | | Submit I-D on LDAPv3 Update Reconciliation Procedures. |
Done | | Revise I-D on LDAPv3 Directory Replication Requirements. |
Done | | Revise I-D on LDAPv3 Replication Architecture. |
Done | | Revise I-D on LDAPv3 Replication Information Model. |
Done | | Submit I-D on LDAPv3 Replication Information Transport
Protocol. |
Done | | Revise I-D on LDAPv3 Replication Architecture. |
Done | | LDAPv3 Directory Replication Requirements I-D goes to WG
Last Call as Informational. |
Done | | Submit I-D on LDAPv3 Mandatory Replica Management. |
Done | | Submit I-D on LDAPv3 Replication General Usage Profile |
Apr 03 | | Revise LDAPv3 Replication Information Model I-D |
Done | | Revise LDAPv3 Client Update Protocol I-D |
Done | | LDAPv3 Client Update Protocol I-D goes to WG Last Call as
Proposed Standard |
May 03 | | Revise LDAPv3 Update Reconciliation Procedures I-D |
May 03 | | Revise LDAPv3 Replication Architecture I-D |
Jun 03 | | LDAPv3 Replication Information Model I-D goes to WG Last
Call as Informational |
Jun 03 | | LDAPv3 Replication Architecture I-D goes to WG Last Call as
Informational. |
Jun 03 | | Revise LDAPv3 Replication General Usage Profile I-D |
Jul 03 | | Revise LDAPv3 Replication Information Transport Protocol
I-D |
Jul 03 | | Revise LDAPv3 Replica Management I-D |
Jul 03 | | Evaluate Deliverables Status |
Aug 03 | | LDAPv3 Replication Information Transport Protocol I-D goes
to WG Last Call as Experimental |
Aug 03 | | LDAPv3 Update Reconciliation Procedures I-D goes to WG Last
Call as Experimental |
Aug 03 | | LDAPv3 Mandatory Replica Management I-D goes to WG Last
Call as Experimental |
Sep 03 | | LDAPv3 Replication General Usage Profile I-D goes to WG
Last Call as Informational |
15:15.LDAP Duplication/Replication/Update Protocols WG (ldup)
Tuesday, July 15, at 1300-1400
===============================
CHAIRS: Chris Apple <capple@dsi-consulting.net> John Strassner
<john.strassner@intelliden.com>
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
================================
CHAIRS: Chris Apple <capple@dsi-consulting.net> John Strassner
<john.strassner@intelliden.com>
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/inter
net-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-draf
ts/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 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 asked to have them left in the draft. Thus, since the
MRM draft will by definition discover any problems with these or other
similar attributes not being defined in the draft, it was decided to
remove these for the next revision of the draft.
Other attributes attributeExclusionFilter,
attributeInclusionFilter, secondsToWaitDefault, and
secondsToWait2 were defined as disallowing user modification. This
didnt 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 facilitate
copying replica information. Slide 3 shows an alternative. The working
group preferred slide 2.
General Usage Profile Draft
http://www.ietf.org/intern
et-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 Morgan will try and
update this draft as soon as possible, probably one month from now. Kurt
thought that it depended on 2247bis, and that it shouldnt be
normative. Since the Usage Profile is informational, it doesnt 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 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 Mandatory in the title of
the draft because of its implications. It was agreed to change the title to
Replica Management, but to keep the file name the same for
administrative reasons.
Architecture draft
http://www.ietf.org/internet-dr
afts/draft-ietf-ldup-model-08.txt
Uppili sent a note to the chairs providing the following status (since he
was unable to attend). He will be submitting a draft shortly that in his
opinion will be ready for last call.
Jerry Maziarsky and Uppili have discussed the following four types of
edits that must be fixed before the document is ready for
consideration for last call. The first is that the discussions on
different deployment configurations (single vs multi-master) and
consistency models (synchronous vs asynchronous) should be separated and
cleaned up. The second is that the architecture implies that the DITs of
replicating directories have to be symmetric, but in actuality only the
areas under replication need be. The third is that the document should
include discussion on how nodes are added, deleted or upgraded without
adversely affecting total system up-time, since one of the objectives of
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). The authors believe that it is
heterogeneous.
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
|