Subject: Fwd: Call for interop proposals

From: Kurt Zeilenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:03:34 -0800

Anyone interest in proposing some LDAP interop testing?
     -- Kurt

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
> Date: January 9, 2008 5:13:17 PM PST
> To: Apps Discuss <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Lisa Dusseault's Chairs <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Subject: Call for interop proposals
> List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols  
> <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
>
>
> At the Apps area open meeting in Vancouver, Chris & I mentioned the  
> possibility of doing a day of interoperability events at the next  
> IETF meeting.  This would replace a day of Apps area meetings during  
> the normal meeting hours and in the normal meeting location.   
> Ideally it would allow people to come to the IETF for more than just  
> "their" meeting (although we have always hoped they can attend other  
> WG meetings as well) and participants may get more benefit and  
> better justification for attending.
>
> If we're going to do this, we need proposals: what topic  ( IDs,  
> RFCs, suites or functionality) will be tested.  I don't think  
> interops will need a lot of management but volunteer coordinators  
> would be ideal.  Proposals will need to be followed quickly by some  
> indications of who will participate.  WG scheduling is already open  
> and we need to tell the Secretariat immediately if they need to  
> reserve a day for interops.
>
> Proposals should probably be posted on some relevant subject mailing  
> list to quickly generate discussion among potential participants --  
> not everybody reads Apps Discuss.
>
> Thanks,
> Lisa
>
>

---

From: Jaimon Jose <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:20:59 +0530

We do have  test suites defined by opengroup which most of the directory 
vendors follow.  Would that be sufficient? or should we define new test 
suites as part of this exercise?

--jaimon

Kurt Zeilenga wrote, On 01/11/2008 11:33 AM:
>> possibility of doing a day of interoperability events at the next IETF 
>> meeting.  This would replace a day of Apps area meetings during the 
>> normal meeting hours and in the normal meeting location.  Ideally it 
>> would allow people to come to the IETF for more than just "their" 
>> meeting (although we have always hoped they can attend other WG 
>> meetings as well) and participants may get more benefit and better 
>> justification for attending.
>>
>> If we're going to do this, we need proposals: what topic  ( IDs, RFCs, 
>> suites or functionality) will be tested.  I don't think interops will 
>> need a lot of management but volunteer coordinators would be ideal.  
>> Proposals will need to be followed quickly by some indications of who 
>> will participate.  WG scheduling is already open and we need to tell 
>> the Secretariat immediately if they need to reserve a day for interops.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ldapext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext

---

From: Michael Ströder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:20:44 +0100

> suites as part of this exercise?

Would be interesting to test some things which have rather draft status
like draft-zeilenga-ldap-relax-02.txt (together with a user interface)
or non-OpenLDAP syncrepl implementations (RFC 4533) if they exist.

Do the test suites of opengroup also cover proxy authorization? E.g.
JNDI falls short following RFC 4370 and there hasn't any response to my
inquiry on the JNDI-INTEREST mailing list. Ah, well...

How about testing over Internet? Less social fun but also less traveling.

Ciao, Michael.

---

From: "Tom Doman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:47:31 -0700

Michael,

I thought I was on the JNDI interest list but I didn't see your message
about JNDI and RFC 4370.  I've been looking at using proxy authz
using JNDI, how does it fall short?  I haven't tried it yet but I'd love
to know what you've experienced.

Thanks,
Tom
 
>>> Michael Ströder <[email-masked]> 01/15/08 11:20 AM >>> 

Would be interesting to test some things which have rather draft status
like draft- zeilenga- ldap- relax- 02.txt (together with a user interface)
or non- OpenLDAP syncrepl implementations (RFC 4533) if they exist.

Do the test suites of opengroup also cover proxy authorization? E.g.
JNDI falls short following RFC 4370 and there hasn't any response to my
inquiry on the JNDI- INTEREST mailing list. Ah, well...

Ciao, Michael.

---

From: Michael Ströder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:55:32 +0100

Tom Doman wrote:
> about JNDI and RFC 4370.

To avoid spamming the IETF lists I've followed-up on this on the 
JNDI-INTEREST mailing list.

Ciao, Michael.

---

From: Jaimon Jose <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:06:48 +0530

> inquiry on the JNDI-INTEREST mailing list. Ah, well...
These test suites are mainly to verify the standard compliance.  Proxy 
authorization is not part of the test suite.

> How about testing over Internet? Less social fun but also less traveling.

Sounds like a good idea.

--jaimon

---

From: Kurt Zeilenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:14:47 -0800

On Jan 14, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Jaimon Jose wrote:

> We do have  test suites defined by opengroup which most of the  
> directory vendors follow.  Would that be sufficient?

They might be a good start, but i suspect they would be kind of old  
hat.  That is, not tell us much new.

For instance, I would be particularly interested in testing  
internationalization interoperability.
That is, testing such things as SASLprep (in clients) and LDAPprep (in  
servers).

There are various other changes made in LDAPbis that might impact  
interoperability and should be tested.

And then there are various extensions...

> or should we define new test suites as part of this exercise?

I think a good strategy is for each participant to come armed with  
their own test suite of things like to test across all (applicable)  
players.  I assume everyone runs their own suite against their own  
software.  What we want to do is run each of these suites against the  
others' software.

-- Kurt

>>> Cc: Lisa Dusseault's Chairs <lisa-dusseault- 
>>> [email-masked]>, [email-masked]
>>> At the Apps area open meeting in Vancouver, Chris & I mentioned  
>>> the possibility of doing a day of interoperability events at the  
>>> next IETF meeting.  This would replace a day of Apps area meetings  
>>> during the normal meeting hours and in the normal meeting  
>>> location.  Ideally it would allow people to come to the IETF for  
>>> more than just "their" meeting (although we have always hoped they  
>>> can attend other WG meetings as well) and participants may get  
>>> more benefit and better justification for attending.
>>>
>>> would be ideal.  Proposals will need to be followed quickly by  
>>> some indications of who will participate.  WG scheduling is  
>>> already open and we need to tell the Secretariat immediately if  
>>> they need to reserve a day for interops.
>>>
>>> Proposals should probably be posted on some relevant subject  
>>> mailing list to quickly generate discussion among potential  
>>> participants -- not everybody reads Apps Discuss.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Lisa
>>>
>>>

---

From: Ludovic Poitou <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:21:37 +0100

Kurt,

Sun would be interested in participating in the interoperability  
testing.
We would have 3 servers to test against: Sun Directory Server, Sun  
Directory Proxy Server and OpenDS.

Who else is participating ?
I've seen interest from Novell and Michael Stroeder so far.

Regards,

Ludovic.

On Jan 16, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:

> That is, testing such things as SASLprep (in clients) and LDAPprep  
> (in servers).
>
> software.  What we want to do is run each of these suites against  
> the others' software.
>
> -- Kurt
>
>
>>
>>
>> --jaimon
>>
>>>> next IETF meeting.  This would replace a day of Apps area  
>>>> meetings during the normal meeting hours and in the normal  
>>>> meeting location.  Ideally it would allow people to come to the  
>>>> IETF for more than just "their" meeting (although we have always  
>>>> hoped they can attend other WG meetings as well) and participants  
>>>> may get more benefit and better justification for attending.
>>>>

Ludovic Poitou                                    Sun Microsystems Inc.
OpenDS Community Lead               Directory Services
http://blogs.sun.com/Ludo/         Grenoble Engineering Center - France

Sun Microsystems requires the following notice:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTICE:  This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: Kurt Zeilenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:26:39 +0000

> I've seen interest from Novell and Michael Stroeder so far.

I can bring the Isode M-Vault (server) and Sodium Sync (client).  I  
suspect having OpenLDAP there will not be a problem.  Will check to  
see if Apache DS can be there.   Others are, of course, quite welcomed.

-- Kurt

>>>>> hoped they can attend other WG meetings as well) and  
>>>>> participants may get more benefit and better justification for  
>>>>> attending.
>>>>>
>>>>> interops will need a lot of management but volunteer  
>>>>> coordinators would be ideal.  Proposals will need to be followed  
>>>>> quickly by some indications of who will participate.  WG  
>>>>> scheduling is already open and we need to tell the Secretariat  
>>>>> immediately if they need to reserve a day for interops.
>>>>>
> ~ 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~ 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>