[ldapext] Comparing RFC2307, RFC2307bis and DBIS

Mark R Bannister <dbis@proseconsulting.co.uk> Mon, 13 April 2015 23:07 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 071971B2AF2 for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] 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 EBKovqTeuXl3 for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailex.mailcore.me (mailex.mailcore.me [94.136.40.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C17D11B2ABF for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Apr 2015 16:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from host86-148-222-254.range86-148.btcentralplus.com ([86.148.222.254] helo=[192.168.1.67]) by mail4.atlas.pipex.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <dbis@proseconsulting.co.uk>) id 1YhnRw-0005NC-3A for ldapext@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:07:28 +0100
Message-ID: <552C4C2F.9070804@proseconsulting.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:07:27 +0100
From: Mark R Bannister <dbis@proseconsulting.co.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ldapext@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailcore-Auth: 12040446
X-Mailcore-Domain: 1286164
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/VoiSdq-INsHUsZuBpAjntBwa6is>
Subject: [ldapext] Comparing RFC2307, RFC2307bis and DBIS
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, 13 Apr 2015 23:07:32 -0000

I've now written up what I hope is a comprehensive comparison of 
RFC2307, RFC2307bis and DBIS (a proposed replacement for them).

I was motivated to do this after talking recently with some software 
vendors who seemed to misunderstand DBIS, thinking that they could get 
all the benefits of DBIS from their RFC2307 client software just by 
remapping some attributes.  The write-up below should hopefully shed 
more light on what you can do, what you can't do, and why DBIS is a big 
improvement over RFC2307 or RFC2307bis.

Feature comparison:
https://sourceforge.net/p/dbis/wiki/DBIS%20and%20RFC2307%20-%20A%20Comparison/

Schema comparison:
https://sourceforge.net/p/dbis/wiki/DBIS%20and%20RFC2307%20schemas/

Comments welcome as always.  Note that DBIS is still a work in progress, 
and I will gladly receive and consider feature requests. I'm also 
looking for individuals who can test DBIS on other platforms and provide 
patches where necessary, as I only have access to OpenSuSE, RHEL and 
Solaris hosts.

Best regards,
Mark Bannister.