Subject: LDUP Requirements

From: Richard Huber <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:48:32 -0500

Internet Drafts Editor -

Please publish the attached draft as draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-11.txt.

LDUPers, Patrik -

This draft addresses the IESG comments:

 - Responded to the IESG comment "It requires minimum
   mandatory-to-implement encryption, but fails to do same for
   integrity" by adding requirement S8 to deal with integrity.

 - Responded to the IESG comment "It needs a statement that avoidance
   of congestion and over-chattiness of the replication protocol must
   be considered in the design." by changing requirement G3 (to remove
   the text about network performance) and adding G11 (to specifically
   deal with chattiness).

It also addresses some comments (I think they came from Kurt Zeilenga,
Ed Reed, and Steven Legg) that came up on the mailing list since draft
-10 and also fixes a typo or two that the authors found:

 - Modified the definition of "Sparse Replication" in Section 2.  The
   original version was just wrong.

 - Replaced "privacy" with "confidentiality" in requirements S6 and
   S7.  This seems to be the proper term in current usage.

 - Since the Access Control Model is still under discussion, the
   security considerations (Section 6) were changed to reference the
   Access Control Requirements which are already an RFC.  This removes
   the only reference to an Internet Draft in the document.  Section 7
   (References) was changed accordingly.

 - Spelled out "Lightweight Directory Access Protocol" in Abstract.

 - Added "Unauthenticated Replication" as a synonym for Anonymous
   Replication in Section 2.

 - Added requirement MM8 ("MM8.  Multi-master replication MUST support
   read-only replicas as well as read-write replicas.").  The
   definition of multi-master replication in Section 2 covered this,
   but there were comments on the list that it should be an explicit
   requirement.

 - Changed a typo in Section B3 ("vendor's" -> "vendors'").

 - Changed issue/expiration dates and draft number as needed.

We did not address comments that would change WG consensus reached
before the draft was submitted to the IESG.

Rick Huber, for the authors