Re: [ldapext] DBIS - new IETF drafts

Howard Chu <hyc@highlandsun.com> Mon, 06 January 2014 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <hyc@highlandsun.com>
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 F00031AE23C for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:19:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.439
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a49F-uoSeuOk for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:19:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.highlandsun.com (mail.highlandsun.com [70.87.222.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E4001AE1F6 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:19:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.highlandsun.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201E510F3D; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 16:19:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <52CB1DE3.6040000@highlandsun.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 13:19:31 -0800
From: Howard Chu <hyc@highlandsun.com>
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 <dbis@proseconsulting.co.uk>, ldapext@ietf.org
References: <52C9BED5.2080900@proseconsulting.co.uk> <52CAEA7D.5030002@highlandsun.com> <52CB194D.3090009@proseconsulting.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <52CB194D.3090009@proseconsulting.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: 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
>> 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

-- 
   -- Howard Chu
   CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
   Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
   Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/