Subject: RE: several counts (Was: WG Last Call on the LDAPv3 Directory Replication I-D)

From: "Paul Leach" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:19:45 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kurt D. Zeilenga [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 3:03 PM
> To: John Strassner
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: several counts (Was: WG Last Call on the LDAPv3 Directory
> Replication I-D)
> 
> >Second, please stop using the term "passive data" as no one 
> on this list has defined it in an unambiguous and 
> satisfactory manner. It is impossible to consider using LDUP 
> in this fashion until a definition for this term that we can 
> all agree with is offered and agreed to.
> 
> I agree.  I believe we should use the term "userApplication" 
> attribute.
> This is well defined.

Well, I used "passive data" recently, and I don't know if
"userApplication" is at all related.

What I mean by "passive data" is this: An attribute may be said to be
"passive data" when 
a write to the attribute followed by a read of the same attribute
returns exactly the data written, and no other attribute's value is
affected.

An attribute that is not "passive data" is "active data". A directory
may be LDAP compliant and still contain active data. Two different
directory implementations may therefore be LDAP compliant yet implement
different forms of active data (different attributes may be active, for
example). However, issues have been raised about the ability to
replicate active data, between directories that implement their active
data differently, and hence on the viability of the requirement that
LDUP be able to replicate any LDAP compliant directory.

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:06:10 -0800

>"userApplication" is at all related.

Well, I think the problem is that you are trying to describe
experimental semantics.

>returns exactly the data written, and no other attribute's value is

That sounds like userApplication usage to me.

>An attribute that is not "passive data" is "active data".

"active data" sounds like "operational" usage to me.  That is,
operational usage includes (but not limited to) attributes which
the server maintains.

Kurt

---

From: John Strassner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:47:12 -0800

Thanks for providing a better definition, but I still don't see how we can 
use this one. There's no guarantee, for instance, that what is at one 
moment in time "passive" data won't change to "active data" soon 
thereafter. This means that the data can't be consistently nor 
deterministically characterized as either "passive" or "active". Plus, data 
of a particular type or use may be active in one replica and passive in 
another. There are yet more variations that we could consider, but I think 
that these are plenty for now.

If you can solve these and related problems, please respond. Otherwise, 
let's just drop the use of the term.

thanks,
John

---

From: "Paul Leach" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:09:40 -0800

> From: John Strassner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 2:47 PM
> To: Paul Leach
> Cc: Kurt D. Zeilenga; John Strassner; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: several counts (Was: WG Last Call on the LDAPv3 Directory
> Replication I-D)
> 
> 
> use this one.

I don't suggest that anyone use it in the standard. However, I think its
a lot more suggestive of its meaning than "userApplication" and
"operational".

> There's no guarantee, for instance, that what is at one 
> thereafter.

> This means that the data can't be consistently nor 
> deterministically characterized as either "passive" or 
> "active".

And then why don't "userApplication" and "operational" suffer from the
same problem? Kurt assures me they are the same thing.

> Plus, data 
> another.

Exactly why they won't interop, and why the requirements should say they
aren't expected to.

> There are yet more variations that we could 
> consider, but I think 

If Kurt is correct, and all I've done is invent new terms that match
existing ones, then this is just FUD. And we've got all those problems
you mention anyway.

Paul

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:26:27 -0800

>existing ones, then this is just FUD. And we've got all those problems

Well, I don't think you are using the terms "active" and "passive"
in a manner 100% synonmous with "userApplications" and "operational".
 From your prior posts, you seem to imply that some user application
attributes could be "active".  This does fit into the X.500 data
model well.  Hence, my comment that you apparently were try to
describe something which is "experimental" in nature.

I don't see why LDUP requirements need to say that some yet to be
specified extension to the LDAP data model need not be supported.

Kurt