Subject: [ldapext] Distributed Operations Rough Draft

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 14:33:10 -0600

All,

I just wanted to drop an update regarding the work I'm trying to do
with LDAP chained operations. At Mark Ennis' suggestion, I have changed
the approach I was taking in the previous chained operation I-D I
posted. Instead, this draft I-D attempts a fuller explanation of
distributed directory procedures.

In it, I begin by discussing name resolution and operation evaluation,
and end by discussing operation distribution via chaining or referral
following. In the middle, I use a ContinuationReference data type to tie
things together. The goal that prompted this is that I'd like to have a
model where whether an operation is to be distributed via chaining
versus referral following, both methods have the same class of service.

You may also note that I'm proposing to do certain things slightly
differently than X.518 does (namely, the targetObject is the name of the
reference object causing the operation to be distributed, rather than
the parent of the next naming context being resolved or operated on. I
did this for two primary reasons 1) I view it as a much simpler model.
Some of the baggage that came with the X.518 method causes numerous
subtleties that escape the casual (and even focused) reader. 2) LDAP has
already set a precedent in the way that referrals and
searchContinuationReferences are returned and handled.

You'll note that the later sections are sparse or just not filled in
yet. I have the information in different places, I just haven't
consolidated (editied) it all into this document yet.

If anyone would like to meet for impromptu meetings at IETF60, drop me
a note. Or if you're not in San Diego, feel free to review the document,
but be aware that I'm scurrying to finish it. I do welcome any feedback
regarding whether you think I'm on or off track in any areas though.

Thanks,

Jim
_______________________________________________
Ldapext mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ldapext

---

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:32:55 -0600

I fixed and added more stuff.

Jim

>>> "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]> 8/1/04 2:33:10 PM >>>
All,

with LDAP chained operations. At Mark Ennis' suggestion, I have
changed

In it, I begin by discussing name resolution and operation evaluation,
and end by discussing operation distribution via chaining or referral
following. In the middle, I use a ContinuationReference data type to
tie
things together. The goal that prompted this is that I'd like to have
a
model where whether an operation is to be distributed via chaining
versus referral following, both methods have the same class of
service.

You may also note that I'm proposing to do certain things slightly
differently than X.518 does (namely, the targetObject is the name of
the
reference object causing the operation to be distributed, rather than
the parent of the next naming context being resolved or operated on. I
did this for two primary reasons 1) I view it as a much simpler model.
Some of the baggage that came with the X.518 method causes numerous
subtleties that escape the casual (and even focused) reader. 2) LDAP
has
already set a precedent in the way that referrals and
searchContinuationReferences are returned and handled.

If anyone would like to meet for impromptu meetings at IETF60, drop me
a note. Or if you're not in San Diego, feel free to review the
document,
but be aware that I'm scurrying to finish it. I do welcome any
feedback
regarding whether you think I'm on or off track in any areas though.

Thanks,

Jim

---

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:14:56 -0600

Here's another update of this document. At this point, all the major
sections are in place. I need to take a few passes at polishing it. I
also think there's one more control to be added, and maybe one more data
field (explained in <TODO:> statements). I'm only re-sending in case
someone is interested in reviewing before I make the submission next
week. I'll send an update if I do anything else substantial.

Jim

>>> Jim Sermersheim 8/1/04 4:32:55 PM >>>

Jim

All,

Thanks,

Jim

---

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 00:28:28 -0600

Here's one more pass before I leave the sanctuary of San Diego and
venture into can't-get-anything-done land. This one is (hopefully) a
little cleaner and more self-supported.

Jim

>>> "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]> 8/2/04 5:14:56 PM >>>
also think there's one more control to be added, and maybe one more
data

Jim

Jim

All,

Thanks,

Jim