Subject: RE: New LDUP requirements draft

From: "Timothy Hahn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 07:15:08 -0500

Steven,

I agree that it seems there is a need to clarify this requirement.  I 
think that it may be interpreted differently.  If this is the intent (i.e. 
leave it intentionally vague - perhaps to allow for lattitude in 
implementations?) then so be it.  If the intent is to make something more 
clear, then the requirement should be clarified/explained in more detail.

Regards,
Tim Hahn

Internet: [email-masked]
Internal: Timothy Hahn/Endicott/IBM@IBMUS or IBMUSM00(HAHNT)
phone: 607.752.6388     tie-line: 8/852.6388
fax: 607.752.3681

"Steven Legg" <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
03/27/2001 02:30 AM
Please respond to steven.legg

        To:     "'Richard V Huber'" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
        cc:     Ellen Stokes/Tivoli Systems@Tivoli Systems, <[email-masked]>, 
<[email-masked]>
        Subject:        RE: New LDUP requirements draft

Rick, et al,

> -We feel that discussion of propagating end state vs. changes is about
> implementation.  Rather, P6 (now P7 due to other changes) has been
> rewritten to explicitly require propagation of atomicity of LDAP
> operations as defined in RFC 2251. We feel it is now self justifying.

I don't know how I should interpret the new P7 requirement, reproduced
immediately below.

> P7.  The protocol MUST preserve atomicity of LDAP operations as defined
> in RFC2251 [RFC2251].

The wording is the same in draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-07.txt and
draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-08.txt.

At face value P7 could be interpreted as requiring a previously accepted
update to be rejected during replication processing if any part of the
update, e.g. a single modification in a modify request, is not performed
because it is redundant, e.g. it attempts to insert a value that already
exists, or has been superseded, e.g. a more recent update deleted the
value.

This interpretation is at odds with other sections of the requirements
document, contrary to the author's position as I understood it, and
contrary to the working group consensus, so P7 must mean something else.

What exactly is P7 requiring of the LDUP protocol ?

Regards,
Steven

---

From: "Timothy Hahn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:40:07 -0500

Yes, the requirement does represent something of a problem now.

I think that for the LDUP WG to do "due diligence", the 
requirement must either be removed (no concensus on what the requirement 
means), or the requirement must be clarified (so we all know what it means 
- 
whether or not we agree with).

Regards,
Tim Hahn