Re: [ldapext] LDAP work at IETF...

Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com> Tue, 27 January 2015 15:51 UTC

Return-Path: <michael@stroeder.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 1C5091A88DB for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 07:51:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.312
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.312 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 1shwdo3DxFKf for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 07:51:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from srv1.stroeder.com (srv1.stroeder.com [213.240.180.113]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00BE71A892F for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 07:48:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from srv4.stroeder.local (srv4.stroeder.local [10.1.1.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.stroeder.local", Issuer "stroeder.com Server CA no. 2009-07" (not verified)) by srv1.stroeder.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 906AD1D321; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:48:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv4.stroeder.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54DB91DFAE; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:48:01 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at stroeder.local
Received: from srv4.stroeder.local ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (srv4.stroeder.local [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B_fumPuRxgK2; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:47:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from nb2.stroeder.local (nb2.stroeder.local [10.1.1.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by srv4.stroeder.local (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E8A6E1CE25; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:47:54 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54C7B32A.7050709@stroeder.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:47:54 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_Str=c3=b6der?= <michael@stroeder.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.32
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark R Bannister <dbis@proseconsulting.co.uk>, ldapext@ietf.org
References: <etPan.54c553b0.19e21bb2.1f2@lpm.local> <54C77E7A.6010506@proseconsulting.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <54C77E7A.6010506@proseconsulting.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms050707020404010607010709"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/TamwXfcFwh9wEATzc7kbI4YCDF0>
Subject: Re: [ldapext] LDAP work at IETF...
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: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:51:13 -0000

Mark R Bannister wrote:
> The following internet drafts are intended to replace RFC2307 and RFC2307bis. 
> [..]
> draft-bannister-dbis-mapping
> draft-bannister-dbis-netgroup
> draft-bannister-dbis-passwd
> draft-bannister-dbis-hosts
> draft-bannister-dbis-devices
> draft-bannister-dbis-automounter
> draft-bannister-dbis-custom
> [..]
> I would prefer to see RFC2307bis removed from the list to be considered above,
> and replaced by the DBIS drafts.

This probably won't happen because there are so many RFC2307(bis) deployments
out there which cannot easily be migrated.

Also I have my own schema built on top of RFC2307bis (not published yet) which
differs much from DBIS for very good reasons. I aim to present it at LDAPcon
2015 in Edinburgh (in case the program comittee agrees). A preview version of
that is already in production for almost a year in a large data center.

So my suggestion would be to brush up RFC2307bis as much as possible (taking
care of Kurt's IANA comments) so that you can base DBIS on that, as I will
base my system on top of that.

How does that sound to you?

Ciao, Michael.