Subject: Re: Shouls LCUP support replication?

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:34:12 -0700

At 01:00 PM 6/12/2001, John Strassner wrote:
>Now that we've split these into two topics, please tell me why you think
>that LCUP supporting replicated environments is out of scope.

There are a number of reasons why I believe LCUP need not detail
support for a client updating from any replica hold a context.

First and foremost is that I'd like to see LCUP work completed
soon.  Adding support for replicated environments will require
significant more work and likely require a normative reference
upon a technical specification detailing LDAP replicated
environments.

> If it is, then at the minimum we shouldn't have it in LDUP,

That may be true.

> which we all agreed many moons ago was the most appropriate wg
> for this work to be in.

What we agreed to a few moons ago was to engineer:
  A protocol that enables an LDAP client to synchronize with the
  content of a directory information tree (DIT) stored by an
  LDAP server and to be notified about the changes to that content
  [LDUP WG Charter].

That does imply a requirement that LCUP support replicated
environments.  And I do not recall any discussions regarding
the need to support LDAP replication prior to the recent
cookie thread.

Kurt

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 21:03:13 -0700

At 12:55 PM 6/12/2001, John Strassner wrote:
>if you agree that the format of the cookie isn't the real issue, then
>let's please separate that into two discussions:
>
>  1) the format of the cookie
>  2) whether LCUP will support replicated environments

In the absence of support for replicated environments,
is there a reason to specify the format of the cookie?

Kurt