Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ldup-subentry-01.txt

From: "Ed Reed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 07:47:09 -0600

Correct.

I discussed putting it under LDAPEXT with Tim and Mark, but they allowed
as how it might as well go under LDUP since (1) that's where it will be
used first, and (2) LDAPEXT has enough on it's plate already ;-)

So yes, LDUP WG is just a "flag of convenience" for the draft.  The
Subentry object class is intended to be generally useful to the
community, and not just to the LDUP efforts.

Ed

=================
Ed Reed
Reed-Matthews, Inc.
+1 801 785 0315
http://www.OnCallDBA.COM

>>> Helmut Volpers <[email-masked]> 10/20/99 01:10AM >>>
Hi Ed,

I have a question to your draft "LDAP Subentry Schema". If I understand
it 
correct this draft offers the possibility to store operational entries 
in a Directory Server which were not shown in normal browsing operations 
only if a client explicit request for them. They were uses for
Replication 
agreements and perhaps for any other kind of operational objects.
What is the reason this draft is located in the LDUP group and not 
LDAPEXT ? Is it because we will need this first time for replication ?

Regards

Helmut