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

Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com> Tue, 27 January 2015 22:14 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 53AF21A9069 for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:14:33 -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 LJAkiNP7Qhv6 for <ldapext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:14:31 -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 10C061A9060 for <ldapext@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:14:30 -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 809CA1CED0; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:14:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv4.stroeder.local (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1EBD1D24A; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:14:25 +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 mK4RHasbn4Wu; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:14:19 +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 96D211CFBC; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:14:18 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <54C80DB9.10901@stroeder.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 23:14:17 +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> <54C7B32A.7050709@stroeder.com> <54C7FA23.7000101@proseconsulting.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <54C7FA23.7000101@proseconsulting.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms020708030502050302090703"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ldapext/jcPhQpg4wAV1Z7UGGqZh5j2Q9Bs>
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 22:14:33 -0000

Mark R Bannister wrote:
> On 27/01/2015 15:47, Michael Ströder wrote:
>> This probably won't happen because there are so many RFC2307(bis) deployments
>> out there which cannot easily be migrated.
> 
> DBIS supports maps defined in legacy RFC2307 or RFC2307bis format, as well as
> using the new format.  [..]  See
> https://sourceforge.net/p/dbis/wiki/ConfigurationMaps-RFC2307/

It seems there was a misunderstanding, probably my wording wasn't clear enough:
The issue is that many LDAP *clients* are hard-coded to the RFC2307 or
RFC2307bis schema. The server's data can be IMHO way more easily migrated than
legacy client systems.

> DBIS is not a superset nor a child schema that inherits from RFC2307bis, nor
> is it built on top of RFC2307bis

Ok, I see.

> RFC2307 and RFC2307bis can be completely retired and DBIS
> put in their place and there would be no omissions.

Unfortunately, no.

> I think if people
> started looking deeper into the DBIS internet drafts,

I've looked into your drafts. But it differs very much from what I'm after. We
had this discussion before: IMO netgroups must die, die, die...

Ciao, Michael.