Subject: WG Meeting Minutes

From: John Strassner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:23:54 -0700

Greetings LDUPers,

below please find the draft meeting minutes for the San Diego meeting.
Please submit any comments and corrections to me asap so that I can
include these in the official minutes. And thanks presenters, I already
have all of your slides for inclusion.

regards, John Strassner
LDUP WG Co-Chair

====================== SNIP HERE ==========================
Draft Summary and Meeting Minutes LDUP Working Group Meeting 50th IETF, 
Minneapolis Minutes recorded by John Strassner, March 19, 2000

The agenda was presented by John, and no adjustments were made.

Discussion of Changes Made to Requirements I-D
   draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-07

The discussion was led by one of the co-authors, Rick Huber.

A summary of the changes made in response to Last Call comments was 
presented. The key points are as follows:

   - interoperability paragraph was rewritten and clarified
   - replaced the term "naming context" with the term "replication base entry"
   - replaced the term "replica ring" with the term "replica group"
   - deprecated the term "updateable replicas"
   - clarified model 1 and multi-master atomicity
   - requirements G9-G11 were added to cover what needs to be replicated at 
the attribute level
   - M3 was reworded for clarity
   - requirement P2 was split into two requirements, P2 and P3,
     and all subsequent P requirements were renumbered
   - moved (the old) P7 to G8 since it is not limited to protocol
   - rewrote P6 (now P7) to explicitly require propagation of
     atomicity of LDAP operations as defined in 2251
   - explicitly noted (ongoing) ACL work in the security section
   - made text in section A.10 self-consistent
   - changed text in B.5.5 to clarify the term "at the same time"

Questions:
   -Ellen asked about other documents that need to be brought in line.  Will be
    tabled until later in the meeting
   -A question of why "updateable replica" was deprecated.  It comes from
    Kurt's mail.
   -Point that P7 moving to G8 makes G2 and G8 copies of each other; authors to
    address this in the next revision of the requirements draft

Rich then presented items that were deferred. The key points were:

   - external locking will be addressed in the profiles I-D
   - clarified that the term "area of replication" is
     equivalent to X.525's term "replicated area"

Question:
   -Point about "area of replication" and X.525 "replicated area" brought
    the comment from Ed that the only requirement for LDUP is to define the
    contiguous sub-tree. Kurt wants a note that LDUP protocol may define
    it own administrative model.  Request that the area of replication is
    a subset of X.500 and that the administrative model...authors seemed to 
agree

Next steps:

The authors will issue a new draft (-08) ASAP and are requesting another WG 
last call. John urged all members to *please* get their comments in this 
week or as soon as the document was issued so that the authors would have 
time to address any additional comments before doing another last call.

Kurt wanted to know if this is really necessary?  John responded yes, 
because technical changes have been made. John asked the meeting 
participants if anyone had any objections to the requirements draft going 
to last call, and there were no objections. Kurt said that he would look at 
the security section.

================================================

Discussion of Usage Profile I-D
    draft-ietf-ldup-usage-profile-00.txt

The discussion was led by Rick Huber, one of the co-authors of the draft.

Rick gave an overview of the -00 draft. Its scope is to discuss the design 
and development issues that may arise due to using replication in directory 
deployments. The document will discuss both single- and multi-master 
scenarios. The authors encourage any application-specific profiles to be added.

Next steps would be to add a discussion of external locking from the 
requirements draft, and to discuss different ways to preserve atomicity 
across replication.

The authors wanted to know whether the target track for this draft should 
be informational or BCP. The sense of the room was that this should be an 
informational track document, as there isn't a set of standards from which 
to recommend best current practices.

John noted that this draft contains multi-master and master-slave profiles, 
so the charter needs correction. John further noted that this is a working, 
living draft, and not ready for last call any time soon. John urged 
everyone to read the draft and submit comments asap, in order to help the 
authors develop the next version of the draft.

===========================================================

Discussion of Changes Made to Architecture Document
    draft-ietf-ldup-model-06.txt

This discussion was led by Ed Reed, one of the authors of the draft. The 
authors think that it is ready for WG Last Call. This version is based 
largely on the comments made by Tim Hahn. The discussion of policy 
inheritance was removed from the document and placed into a new I-D. The 
one outstanding item that the authors know needs to be removed is to drop a 
reference to search filter visibility of subentries.

Question from the floor - how well does this version correlate with the 
requirements document? A lengthy discussion then ensued. However, one of 
the major questions that arose was, what happened with operations that 
cross replication boundaries? How should they be handled?

The answer lies in the direction of a distributed directory, but LDAP 
doesn't yet have a truly distributed model. LDAP Subentry can help. Problem 
with deleting superiors that have subordinate reference - you either delete 
the subordinate, move it to Lost+Found, or say that the operation is not 
allowed because it has children. But this last option is NOT currently in LDAP.

More general question is, how do you take two portions of the namespace, 
where the superior and the subordinate are in different partitions? Note 
that you have DSE types - the object is in one management plane and the 
subordinate is in another management plane (note that LDAP doesn't have 
DSEs). We need to look at the namedref document.

Both LDAPext and LDUP have a stake in how this comes out. In an LDAP 
environment, this is an issue that crops up regardless of whether there is 
replication.

Since this appears to be a significant design issue, John called for a 
group of volunteers to form a design team to study and resolve this 
problem. The volunteers were:

John McMeeking
Mark Smith
Mark Wahl
Skip Sloane
Steve Mclane
Kurt Zeilenga
Ed Reed

This design team's first meeting is tomorrow at 3pm. They will report back 
to the LDUP WG. Their feedback will then be incorporated into the draft.

======================================================

Discussion on URP - ready for Last Call or not?
    draft-ietf-ldup-urp-03.txt

Unfortunately, neither of the authors could attend this meeting due to work 
and illness. John relayed this information.

With respect to the draft, it has timed out, and needs to be reissued. Note 
that it should be compared against the requirements draft, and nothing will 
happen until the requirements doc passes WG Last Call.

=======================================================

Discussion on the LDUP Replication Update Protocol
    draft-ietf-ldup-protocol-02.txt

The discussion was led by Ellen Stokes, one of the authors of the draft.

This draft has timed out and needs to be reissued. Ellen suggested a hard 
deadline of Friday the 13th [ed: honest! ;-) ] of April due for an update 
due to a hard vacation deadline; Roger Harrison to give Ellen an update 
tomorrow. This document **appears** to be ready for Last Call - only minor 
comments were posted in the last revision. Poll of room - no negative 
comments, Roger thinks that it probably is ready as he has been through the 
document.

==========================================

Discussion on LDUP Subentry Schema
    draft-ietf-ldup-subentry-07.txt

This discussion was led by Ed Reed, one of the authors of the draft. Note 
that this is a product of both the LDUP and the LDAPext WGs.

Issued version 7. Main changes included separating the inheritance 
discussion, and put that in a separate document 
(draft-reed-ldup-inheritance-00.txt). Removed the search-filter mechanism 
for visibility. The search operation behaves as though the visibility 
control is present, even though it isn't. In other words, it doesn't make 
any sense if you have used an LDAP Subentry as the base object of the 
search, and you didn't include the control to return the results of the 
search. Kurt pointed out that since these may be nested, and if the base 
object of the search is a subentry, then you should behave as if the 
control is present. Ed agreed.

A discussion followed clarifying other operations. It was agreed that if 
the control is present and true, all you get is subentries, otherwise you 
do not get subentries. Kurt and Ed will recheck the draft one last time to 
be sure that this (and the above) behavior is specified this way in the draft.

Ed agreed to add the description of an administrative area, and then state 
that you can't replicate either a rootDSE or any subentries of the rootDSE.

The purpose of InheritableLDAPSubentry was to provide an example of how to 
add inheritance to policy. After a short discussion, it was agreed in the 
room that it would be best to remove this from the draft.

======================================================

Discussion of Policy Inheritance Mechanisms for LDAP
    draft-reed-ldup-inheritance-00.txt

Ed made a short presentation Ed said that he would make these changes and 
try and publish the document asap. Ed further stated that he will actively 
look for an author to take up the inheritance work, because otherwise he 
will let it die.

===============================================

Discussion on LDAP Client Update Protocol
    draft-natkovich-ldap-lcup-02.txt

(Chair note: please resubmit this draft with as a wg draft (i.e., 
draft-ietf-ldup-lcup-00.txt)

This discussion was led by Mark Smith, one of the authors of the draft.

Rich Megginson has taken over editing. It has been reviewed by the authors. 
No substantial changes, but a fair amount of clarifying text. Note that 
this is not really a -00, as there were several versions of persistent and 
triggered search, and lcup as an individual submission.

Still some open issues in the document, so we need to decide as a group 
whether to punt because they are out of scope or not.

It was noted that LCUP is replacing triggered search, persistent search, 
and dirSync.

======================================================

Discussion of other missing drafts

John McMeeking and Ryan have offered to take up the Mandatory Replica 
Management draft. Tim Hahn has offered to take up the Infomod draft.

======================================================

Any other business

It has become apparent that, after listening to the discussions on progress 
of the various drafts, that two things are missing. They are:

   - we need common naming and terminology applied to all drafts
   - we need someone to compare the requirements document to the other drafts

John suggested that the co-chairs perform this policing (volunteers are 
solicited and welcome!). Draft authors can't really review the drafts for 
these points, as they already should be doing this, and we need independent 
people doing this review.

End of meeting.