Re: [ldapext] DBIS - new IETF drafts

Howard Chu <> Mon, 06 January 2014 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F00031AE23C for <>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:19:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.439
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a49F-uoSeuOk for <>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:19:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E4001AE1F6 for <>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:19:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201E510F3D; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:19:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 13:19:31 -0800
From: Howard Chu <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26a1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark R Bannister <>,
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [ldapext] DBIS - new IETF drafts
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: LDAP Extension Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 21:19:46 -0000

Mark R Bannister wrote:
> On 06/01/2014 17:40, Howard Chu wrote:
>> Mark R Bannister wrote:
>>> In August this year, I submitted some new IETF drafts with the intent
>>> that they would replace NIS and RFC2307.  It introduces Directory Based
>>> Information Services (DBIS).
>>> <snip>
>> Yes, this is the correct list.
> First, Howard let me apologise up-front for not approaching you about
> this sooner.  I appreciate, as the editor of RFC2307bis-02 that it must
> come as quite a shock to you to see a new set of Internet Drafts
> released that could be seen as a direct challenge to your work, and I
> quite understand your defensive posture.  However, I launched this
> initiative as a direct result of working with large corporations (mainly
> banks) who were using RFC2307 extensively across big Linux and Solaris
> installations (between 10,000 to 40,000 hosts) and facing numerous
> pain-points which needed to be addressed.  It was purely technically
> motivated, and I did not mean to cause any offence.  I am completely
> open to ideas and suggestions to further improve DBIS, and I think if
> you dig deep into these drafts and ask me detailed questions you'll
> realise that a lot of time and thought has gone into every decision I
> have made thus far, including preserving whatever makes sense to
> preserve from the RFC2307 heritage.

Nothing defensive here at all. I have nothing personally invested in one spec 
or another. As I stated before, it's a mistake to embed Solaris-specific 
semantics into a supposedly universal spec. My response is purely technical, 
since technical details are my only concern.

>> 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
> 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.

   -- Howard Chu
   CTO, Symas Corp. 
   Director, Highland Sun
   Chief Architect, OpenLDAP