Subject: Consolidation of Comments on draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-06.txt thread

From: John Strassner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:21:37 -0800

LDUPers,

this is the fifth memo, summarizing the thread: Comments on 
draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-06.txt. Note that there were a lot of subjects 
covered in this thread. Only those subjects that directly pertain to the 
requirements I-D will be discussed here. Other subjects having merit will 
be discussed later.

This memo is written as a summarization by the WG Co-Chair of declaring 
consensus on discussed items and requesting changes to be made to the 
current (-06) version of the requirements I-D prior to it being reissued 
for WG Last Call.

There was an exchange of messages between Steven and Richard, where a 
number of recommendations were made. These were either commented on, 
explaining why they weren't added, or added. These will not be repeated 
here; rather, only open issues requiring a comment will be covered.

Issue 1: models and atomicity

There was disagreement in how to describe this. Kurt thought that the extra 
functionality that was provided by Model 1 wasn't adequately expressed. But 
the authors didn't like his wording changes because they thought that model 
2 would be able to support atomicity, at least in some limited cases  like 
single-master.

Action: I didn't see any other support from the WG, but this does seem 
reasonable. Therefore, could Kurt please get with the authors and agree to 
mutually acceptable wording?

Issue 2: interoperability

Kurt pointed out that interoperability may also be limited by servers that 
implement semantics that implement optional features which LDAP defines 
(such as subtypes).

Action: this is a good point, please add this to the requirements I-D

Issue 3: Kurt wanted to see knowledge information representation/semantics 
added to the non-exhaustive list. Authors state that they did NOT want the 
list to grow.

Action: none

regards,
John Strassner
Co-Chair, LDUP WG