Re: [ldapext] DBIS - new IETF drafts

Mark R Bannister <dbis@proseconsulting.co.uk> Wed, 08 January 2014 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <dbis@proseconsulting.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E781AE0AF for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:24:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HLsJ1rsxvz2V for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:24:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2DCB1AE0A6 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 12:24:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host109-155-253-4.range109-155.btcentralplus.com ([109.155.253.4] helo=[192.168.1.68]) by mail6.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <dbis@proseconsulting.co.uk>) id 1W0zg5-0004eK-DH; Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:24:37 +0000
Message-ID: <52CDB3EE.6080203@proseconsulting.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:24:14 +0000
From: Mark R Bannister <dbis@proseconsulting.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Howard Chu <hyc@highlandsun.com>, ldapext@ietf.org
References: <52C9BED5.2080900@proseconsulting.co.uk> <52CAEA7D.5030002@highlandsun.com> <52CB194D.3090009@proseconsulting.co.uk> <52CB1DE3.6040000@highlandsun.com> <52CB2194.30907@proseconsulting.co.uk> <52CB24F4.1030503@highlandsun.com>
In-Reply-To: <52CB24F4.1030503@highlandsun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailcore-Auth: 12040446
X-Mailcore-Domain: 1286164
Subject: Re: [ldapext] DBIS - new IETF drafts
X-BeenThere: ldapext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <ldapext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ldapext/>
List-Post: <mailto:ldapext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext>, <mailto:ldapext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:24:50 -0000

On 06/01/2014 21:49, Howard Chu wrote:
> Mark R Bannister wrote:
>> On 06/01/2014 21:19, Howard Chu wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I must say I'm alarmed at seeing a new proposal that is primarily
>>>>> based on NIS-compatible attribute values. This is exactly the same
>>>>> fundamental problem in the original RFC2307 which made it less than
>>>>> useful for non-Solaris-based OSs like AIX and HPUX. This is the same
>>>>> flaw that I attempted to correct in my updated draft
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-howard-rfc2307bis-02
>>>>
>>>> Please would you give me some specific examples of what you believe is
>>>> less than useful for AIX and HP-UX, and how you corrected these in
>>>> RFC2307bis-02.  Forgive me but I am coming from a Linux and Solaris
>>>> perspective.
>>>
>>> This is all pretty old ground.
>>> http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200310/msg00138.html
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so rather than being "alarmed" you could have just said, "please
>> would you consider seconds instead of days for some of the shadow
>> attributes".  This is a small request, and very easy to put into DBIS,
>> and by no means a "fundamental problem".  Let's put comments into their
>> right perspective.
>>
>> Do you have any more alarming problems that can be turned into simple
>> requests?
>
> The alarming part is that such obvious flaws in data modeling are 
> still occurring today, over a decade after they were first addressed. 
> I raised these issues back in 2001 as I recall. Some references in 
> 2002 http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200201/msg00628.html

Well, I still wouldn't call that "alarming" unless you are of the 
singular belief that every message you have personally written has been 
read by everyone in the world.  So, getting down to the exact detail 
here, and ignoring the fluff, am I right that the only complaint you are 
making in this particular message is that whereas on Solaris some of the 
shadow attributes are represented in days, in HP-UX and AIX they are 
represented in seconds?  As already stated, this is easy to fix.  So if 
that is all, I'll log the request, and make the appropriate change in 
the draft in due course.  If you spot any other details you think can be 
done better, I would really like to know.

Best regards,
Mark.