Subject: Revised Draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-02.txt

From: "Russel F. Weiser" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 07:55:16 -0700

I made several revisions that were requested and missed in the last
revision. I hope that this will be accepted for last call if not I am
also submitting it to the LDUP list for consideration to moving to LAST
CALL as an information draft. 

cheers
RFW

         INTERNET-DRAFT                                     Russel F. Weiser
         Informational Draft                     Digital Signature Trust Co.
         Expires 21 April 2000                                  Ellen Stokes
                                                                         IBM
                                                             21 October 1999

                        LDAP V3 Replication Requirements

                        <draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-02.txt>

  Status of this Memo

      This document is am Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
      all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

      Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
      Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
      other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
      Drafts.

      Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
      months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
      at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
      reference material or to cite them other than as ``work in
      progress.''

      The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
      http://www.ietf.org/ietf/lid-abstracts.txt

      The list of Internet-Drafts Shadow Directories can be accessed at
      http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

  Abstract

      This document discusses the fundamental requirements for replication
      of data accessible via the LDAPv3 [RFC2251] protocol. It is intended
      to be a gathering place for general replication requirements needed
      to provide interoperability between informational directories.

      The key words MUST, MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
      SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
      document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

         Weiser & Stokes       21 April   2000                    [PAGE 1]

         INTERNET-DRAFT     LDAP Replication Requirements     21 October 1999

                             Table of Contents

      1.Introduction.....................................................3
      2. Terminology.....................................................3
      3. Objective.......................................................5
      4. Applicability Statement.........................................5
      5. Replication Model..............................................10
      6. Replication Protocol...........................................12
      7. Schema.........................................................13
      8. Administration and Management Considerations...................13
      9. Acknowledgement................................................14
      10. References....................................................15
      11. Author's Address..............................................15

         Weiser & Stokes       21 April 2000                   [Page 2]

         INTERNET-DRAFT     LDAP Replication Requirements     21 October 1999

  1. Introduction

      The ability to distribute directory information throughout the
      network provides a two fold benefit to the network: (1) increasing
      the reliability of the directory through fault tolerance, and
      (2) brings the directory content closer to the clients using the
      data. LDAP’s acceptance as an access protocol for directory
      information is driving the need to distribute LDAP directory content
      among servers within enterprise and Internet.  Currently LDAP does
      not define a replication mechanism and only generally mentions LDAP
      shadow servers (see [RFC2251] and [Changelog]) in passing. The
      requirements for replication are critical to the successful
      deployment and acceptance of LDAP in the market place.

  2.  Terminology

      For the purposes of this document, the following terminology
      definitions are used:

      Area of replication - A whole or portion of a directory tree(DIT)
      making up a distinct unit of data to be replicated. This may also be
      known as "unit of replication".

      Atomic operation - The ability to treat and contain several updates
      or attribute changes as a single operation for replication purposes
      to guarantee that the several updates or attribute changes are
      propagated to a replica as a single unit.

      Authoritative Master Replica - The Primary updateable replica of the
      replicated information.

      Conflict resolution - Deterministic procedures within replication
      protocols, utilized to resolve change information conflicts that may
      arise due to conflicting changes affecting a directory entry.

      Fractional replication - The capability to replicate a subset of
      attributes of any given entry.

      Incremental Update - The process of updating a replica, or copy, of
      a naming context, by updating only those fields or objects which
      have changed.

      Master Slave, or Single Master Replication - Replication model that
      assumes only one server, the master, allows write access to the
      replicated data. Note that Master-Slave replication can be
      considered a proper subset of multi-master replication.

         Weiser & Stokes       21 April 2000                   [Page 3]

         INTERNET-DRAFT     LDAP Replication Requirements     21 October 1999

      Multi-Master Replication - A replication model where entries can be
      written and updated on any of several updateable replica copies
      without requiring communication with other updateable replicas
      before the write or update is performed.

      Naming Context - Suffix of a Sub-tree. A sub-tree of entries held in
      a single server [X.500].

      One-way Replication  - The process of synchronization in a single
      direction where the authoritative source information is provided to
      a replica.

      Partial Replication - The capability to replicate some subset of
      entries in a naming context.

      Propagation behavior - The general behavior of the actual
      synchronization process between a consumer and a provider of
      replication information.

      Read-only Replica - A read-only copy of a replicated directory. A
      read-only replica is assumed to be a slave replica of master slave
      or single master replication definition.

      Replica - A single instance of a whole or portion of the Directory
      tree (DIT) as defined by area of replication.

      Replica Ring - A set of servers, which hold in common the same DIT
      information as, defined by “Area of replication”. These servers may
      be managed under a single replication agreement that handles all
      members of the set of servers as a group.

      Replica Cycle - When a change or groups of changes need to be
      propagated to the other member of a replica ring. The process of
      contacting a replica member would be considered the beginning of a
      replication cycle; the termination of communications with a replica
      is the end of the cycle whether its due to an error or successful
      exchange of update records.

      Replication - The process of copying portions of naming context
      information and content between multiple LDAP servers, such that
      certain predefined portions of the information are available from
      different servers. Replication can occur between either homogeneous
      implementations across heterogeneous platforms (operating systems)
      or heterogeneous implementations supporting identical replication
      across heterogeneous platforms (operating systems).

      Sparse Replica - A incomplete copy of a sub-tree which maybe
      inclusive with updateable, or Read-only. See Partial replication and

         Weiser & Stokes       21 April 2000                   [Page 4]

         INTERNET-DRAFT     LDAP Replication Requirements     21 October 1999

      Fractional replication.

      Topology - Refers to the shape of the directed graph describing the
      relationships between replicas, as in the replicated directory
      topology.

      Two-way Replication  - The process of synchronization where change
      information may flow bi-directionally between two replica.

      Update Propagation - Protocol-based process by which directory
      replicas are reconciled.

      Updateable Replica - A Non-authoritative read-writeable copy of the
      replicated information. Such that during conflict resolution a
      authoritative master takes precedents in resolving conflicts.

  3.  Objective

      The major objective is to provide an interoperable LDAP V3 directory
      synchronization protocol which is simple, highly efficient and
      flexible enough to support both multi-master and master-slave
      replication operations to meet the needs of both the internet and
      enterprise environments.

  4.  Applicability Statement

      Generally replication can be characterized by looking at data
      consistency models across existing technologies. This may provide
      insight to LDAP v3 replication requirements. The following is a
      brief examination of the following data models.

      Model 1: Tight Consistency -- Includes environments where all
      replicas must always contain exactly the same directory content. Two
      phase commit transaction models may be used to preserve transaction
      consistency.

      Model 2: Eventual Consistency or Transient Consistency -- Includes
      X.500 Directories, Bayou [XEROX], and NDS (Novell Directory
      Services) names service where definite knowledge of the global
      replica topology is provided through predetermined replication
      agreements. Such that every update propagates to every replica that
      it can reach via a path of stepwise eventual connectivity.
      Transaction consistency is preserved for transactions directed at
      the master server in X.500 implementations. NDS additionally
      provides deterministic consistency over time to all replicas due to
      its inherent replication policies.

         Weiser & Stokes       21 April 2000                   [Page 5]

         INTERNET-DRAFT     LDAP Replication Requirements     21 October 1999

      Model 3: Limited Effort Eventual Consistency -- Includes Xerox
      Clearinghouse [XEROX] that provides a statistical probability of
      convergence with global knowledge of replica topology. Similar to
      "Eventual Consistency", except where replicas may purge updates
      therefore dropping propagation changes when some replica time
      boundary is exceeded, thus leaving some changes replicated to a
      portion of the replica topology. Transactional consistency is not
      preserved, though some weaker constraints on consistency are
      available.

      Model 4: Loosest Consistency -- Includes opportunistic or simple
      cache where information is provided from the cache until stale.

      Model 5: Ad hoc -- A copy of a date store where no follow up checks
      are made for the accuracy/freshness of the data.

      Consistency models 2, and 3 involve the use of prearranged
      replication agreements or "Predefined Replication Agreements"
      between cooperating servers. The complexity of Model 1's use of 2-
      phase commit adds additional overhead that should not considered at
      this time. Models 4 and 5 involve unregistered replicas which
      "pull" updates from another directory server without that server's
      knowledge. These models can be considered to violate a directory's
      security policies. Therefore models 1, 4, and 5 are declared to be
      out of scope of this working group.

      So through further review of these consistency models two
      application areas can then be derived with even further
      characterizations of the data types usages.

      Eventual Consistency or Transient Consistency (Model 2) - This model
      provides policy configuration through security management
      parameters; the data is more dynamic and utilizes dynamic address
      information.

      Limited Effort Eventual Consistency (Model 3) - This model matches a
      white-pages environment which contains fairly static data and
      address information. This model mainly replicates message
      attributes.

      Therefore it is believed an LDAP replication should be flexible
      enough to cover the above range of capabilities. The generalized use
      of LDUP replication environment is to provide for the distribution
      of LDAP directory information in order to improve accessibility and
      consistency of the information held by the directory.

      4.1 Replication Scenarios

         Weiser & Stokes       21 April 2000                   [Page 6]

         INTERNET-DRAFT     LDAP Replication Requirements     21 October 1999

      The following directory deployment examples are intended to
      substantiate and validate our replication requirements. It is
      assumed in all cases that directory implementations from different
      vendors are involved.

      4.1.1 Extranet Example

      A company has a trading partner to whom it wishes to provide
      directory information.  This information may be as simple as a
      corporate telephone directory, or as complex as an extranet work
      flow application.  For performance reasons the company may wish to
      have a replica of its directory within the Partner Company, rather
      than simply exposed beyond its firewall.

       The requirements, which follow from this scenario, are:

      - One-way replication, single mastered.
      - Authentication of clients.
      - Common access control and access control identification.
      - Secure transmission of updates.
      - Selective attribute replication (Fractional Replication), so that
        only partial entries can be replicated.

        4.1.2 Consolidation Example

      Company A acquires company B. In the transition period, whilst the
      organizations are merged, both directory services must coexist.
      Company A may wish to attach company B's directory to its own.

      The requirements, which follow from this scenario, are:

      - Multi-Master replication.
      - Common access control model. Access control model identification.
      - Secure transmission of updates.
      - Replication between DITs with potentially differing schema.

        4.1.3 Replication Heterogeneous Deployment Example

      An organization may deliberately deploy multiple directory services
      within their enterprise to employ the differing benefits of each
      service.  In this case multi-master replication will be required to
      ensure that the multiple updateable replicas of the DIT are
      synchronized. Some vendors may provide directory clients, which are
      tied to their own directory service.

      The requirements, which follow from this scenario, are:

      - Multi-Master replication

         Weiser & Stokes       21 April 2000                   [Page 7]

         INTERNET-DRAFT     LDAP Replication Requirements     21 October 1999

      - Common access control model and Access control model
      identification.
      - Secure transmission of updates.
      - Replication between DITs with potentially differing schemas.

      4.1.4 Shared Name Space Example

      Two organizations may choose to cooperate on some venture and need a
      shared name space to manage their operation.  Both organizations
      will require administrative rights over the shared name space.

      The requirements, which follow from this scenario, are:

      - Multi-Master replication.
      - Common access control model and Access control model
      identification.
      - Secure transmission of updates.

      4.1.5 Supplier Initiated Replication

      A single master environment, which maintains a number of replicas of
      the DIT by pushing changes, based on a defined schedule.

      The requirements, which follow from this scenario, are:

      - Single-master environment.
      - Supplier-initiated replication.
      - Secure transmission of updates.

      4.1.6 Consumer Initiated Replication

      Again a single mastered replication topology, but the replica
      initiates the replication exchange rather than the master. An
      example of this is a replica that resides on a laptop computer that
      may run disconnected for a period of time.

      The requirements, which follow from this scenario, are:

      - Single-master environment.
      - Consumer initiated replication.
      - Open scheduling (anytime).

      4.1.7 Prioritized attribute replication

      The password attribute can provide an example of the requirement for
      prioritized attribute replication. A user is working in Utah and the
      administrator resides in California. The user has forgotten his
      password. So the user calls or emails the administrator to request a
      new password. The administrator provides the updated password (a
      change). Policy states that this attribute is critical and must be

         Weiser & Stokes       21 April 2000                   [Page 8]

         INTERNET-DRAFT     LDAP Replication Requirements     21 October 1999

      available to the user for login immediately (e.g. shortly) after the
      administrator changed it. Replication needs to occur immediately for
      critical attributes/objects.

      The requirements, which follow from this scenario, are:

      - Incremental replication of changes.
      - Automatic replication on change of certain attributes.
      - Replicate based on time/attribute semantics.

      4.1.8 Bandwidth issues

      The replication of Server (A) R/W replica (a) in Katmandu is handled
      via a dial up phone link to Paris where server (B) R/W replica of
      (a) resides. Server (C) R/W replica of(a) is connected by a T1
      connection to server (B). Each connection has a different
      performance characteristic.

      The requirements, which follow from this scenario, are:
            
      - Minimize repetitive updates when replicating from multiple
        replication paths.
      - Incremental replication of changes.
      - Provide replication cycles to delay and/or retry when connections
        can not be reached.
      - Allowances for consumer initiated or supplier initiated
        replication.

      4.1.9 Interoperable Administration and Management

      The administrator with administrative authority of the corporate
      directory which is replicated by numerous geographically dispersed
      LDAP servers from different vendors notices that the replication
      process is not completing correctly as the change log is continuing
      to grow and/or error message informs him. The administrator uses his
      $19.95 RepCo LDAP directory replication diagnostics tools to look at
      Root DSE replica knowledge on server 17 and determines that server
      42 made by LDAP’RUS Inc. is not replicating properly due to an
      Object conflict. Using his Repco Remote repair tools he connects to
      server 42 and resolves the conflict on the remote server.

      The requirements, which follow from this scenario, are:

      - Provides replication audit history.
      - Provisions for managing conflict resolution.
      - Provide LDAP access to predetermined agreements, topology and
        policy attributes.
      - Provide operations for comparing replica’s content for validity.
      - Provide LDAP access to status and audit information.

         Weiser & Stokes       21 April 2000                   [Page 9]

         INTERNET-DRAFT     LDAP Replication Requirements     21 October 1999

      4.1.10 Enterprise Directory Replication Mesh

      A Corporation builds a mesh of directory servers within the
      enterprise utilizing LDAP servers from various vendors. Five servers
      are holding the same area of replication. The predetermined
      replication agreement(s) for the enterprise mesh are under a single
      management, and the security domain allows a single predetermined
      replication agreement to manage the 5 servers replication.

      The requirements, which follow from this scenario, are:

      - Predefined replication agreements that manage more than a single
        area of replication that is held on numerous servers.
      - Common support of replication management knowledge across vendor
        implementation.
      - Rescheduling and continuation of a replication cycle when one
        server in a replica ring is busy and/or unavailable.  

  5. Replication Model

      5.1  LDAP Replication MUST be allowed to span different vendors
           directory services in order to provide interoperability.

      5.2  All replicas MUST eventually be updated with the changed
           information, if specified by the replication policy.

      5.3  Replication schedules MUST be configurable to allow for
           periodic replication, with the replication period determined by
           administrator of the replicated system.

      5.4  Replication Model MUST enable replication cycle to be initiated
           on change or based on the number of pending changes.

      5.5  The replication model MUST allow for administrative
           initiation of replication cycle for any replica that may have
           just come back online or was unavailable during previous 
           replication cycles.

      5.6  The replication model MUST support both master-slave and
           authoritative multi-updateable replica relationships.

      5.7  All replicated information between the master database and its
	   replica databases MUST be identical including all non-user
           modify operational attributes such as time stamps. Note this
           does not imply that the entire database is identical from
           replica to replica, but that the subset of data, chosen to
           replicate is identical from replica to replica. Some
           operational attributes may be dynamically evaluated; these
           attributes will not necessarily appear to be identical.

         Weiser & Stokes       21 April 2000                   [Page 10]

         INTERNET-DRAFT     LDAP Replication Requirements     21 October 1999

      5.8  In distributed multi-vendor environment, LDAP replication MUST
           NOT require all copies of the replicated information be
           complete copies of the replicated object.

      5.9  LDAP replication MUST encompass common schema objects and
           attributes, access control, and name space information.

      5.10 Sub-tree Replication MUST be defined to allow for greater
           flexibility in replication topologies of the DIT as defined by
           the area of replication called partial replication.

      5.11 Replication of critical values MUST be synchronized and have
           priority over non-critical values. An example of a critical
           value might be a password or certificate value.

      5.12 Replication activities MUST occur within the context of a
           predefined replication agreement that addresses proper
           knowledge of access requirements and credentials between the
           synchronizing directories. Currently X.525 DISP [X.525]
           discusses this as a shadowing agreement including such
           information as unit of replication, update mode, and access
           point defining many of the policies between the master and a
           replica.

      5.13 The acceptance and usage of the Internet requires that LDAP
           replication be available across disparate vendor directory
           services.

      5.14 LDAP replication MUST provide scalability to both enterprise
           and Internet environments, e.g. an LDAP server may provide
           replication services to replicas within an enterprise as well
           as across the Internet.

      5.15 The replication model MUST define deterministic policy such
           that replication cycle startup time conflicts between two or
           more competing master replicas may be resolved
           programmatically. An example might be automatic submission and
           rescheduling by one of the masters.  In such a case, these
           replication "conflicts" MUST be resolved by the replication
           policy.

      5.16 Any replication capable LDAP server MUST allow replication
           where the 2 replicating servers agree they can replicate. This
           may be accomplished through administrative agreements assuming
           compatible access control model and common schema are provided.

      5.17 The replication model MUST be able to handle convergence and
           resurrection of attributes and objects. This is a consequence
           of delete and move with respect to the replication process.

         Weiser & Stokes       21 April 2000                   [Page 11]

         INTERNET-DRAFT     LDAP Replication Requirements     21 October 1999

      5.18 It is not realistic to assume that all vendors have cooperating
           schemas, but that replication may be allowed between diverse
           schema. The Model MAY allow for replication between divergent
           schema of objects.

  6. Replication Protocol

      6.1  The act of replication SHOULD have minimal impact on both the
           system and network performance.

      6.2  The replica synchronization SHOULD be handled in such a manner
           as to not saturate network with repetitive entry replication
           from multiple synchronization providers points.

      6.3  Replication MUST only be allowed after the authentication and
           verification of authorization of both the replica and the
           source directory.

      6.4  The transport for LDAP synchronization MUST allow for the
           integrity and confidentiality of each replicated server.

      6.5  Replicated data MUST be transferable in a secure manner.

      6.6  Replication protocol MUST provide for recovery and rescheduling
           of a replication cycle due to a replication initiation
           conflicts (e.g. consumer busy replicating with other servers)
           and or loss of connection(e.g. supplier cannot reach a
           replica). The replication protocol MUST include restarting at
           the last acknowledged update prior to interruption rather than
           re-sending updates it had already sent to a consuming replica.

      6.7  LDAP replication MUST allow for full update to facilitate
           replica initialization and reset loading utilizing a
           standardized format such as LDIF [LDIF] format.

      6.8  The replication standard SHOULD NOT limit the size of a
           replica. The area of replication is defined to be a whole or
           portion of a DIT, also allowing a portion of a naming context
           to be replicated. Incremental replication SHOULD be allowed.

      6.9 The replication agreements MUST accommodate multiple servers
           receiving the same replica under a single predefined agreement.

      6.10 The replication protocol MUST allow either a master or replica
           to initiate the replication process.

      6.11 Additionally the initiator MUST be allowed to determine
           whether it will become a consumer or supplier during the
           synchronization startup process. This would allow a replica to

         Weiser & Stokes       21 April 2000                   [Page 12]

         INTERNET-DRAFT     LDAP Replication Requirements     21 October 1999

           be periodically connected and synchronized from remote sites at
           the local administrator's discretion.

      6.12 Multiple LDAP changes to a single server: If transactional
           consistency is propagated during replication, then multiple LDAP
           changes submitted to a single server SHOULD BE treated as a 
           single 'atomic unit of work'.

      6.13 An LDAP Replication Standard SHOULD NOT limit the transaction
           rate of a replication session.

      6.14 Entry change information MUST be purged or discarded in a
           timely manner when change information becomes outdated due to
           propagated to all replica members.

      7. Schema

      7.1  Replica knowledge MUST be provided as DSE attributes.

      7.2  The Replication Protocol documents MUST define standard schema
           for representing replication agreements, and MUST define the
           semantics associated with modifying the attributes of
           replication agreements. The documents MUST also define a
           standard method for determining the location of these
           agreements accessible utilizing LDAP.

      7.3  The Replication Protocol documents MUST define standard schema
           for publishing state information about a given replica, and
           MUST define a standard method for determining the location of
           this information.

      7.4  A location independent management point MUST be defined to
           provide authorized administrators with well known access to the
           replication policies, regardless of network location.

      7.5  Replication agreements of all servers containing replicated
           information MUST be accessible via LDAP.

      7.6  All objects MUST be uniquely identifiable throughout the object
           lifetime .

  8. Administration and Management Considerations

      8.1  Replication policies MUST allow replication of changed
           information to be administratively postponed to a more

         Weiser & Stokes       21 April 2000                   [Page 13]

         INTERNET-DRAFT     LDAP Replication Requirements     21 October 1999

           convenient period.

      8.2  Allowance for non-scheduled replication of a replica MUST be
           provided upon request such that the replica server has been
           down or unconnected for a period of time.

      8.3  Each copy of a replica MUST maintain audit history information
           of which servers it has replicated with and which servers have
           replicated with it.

      8.4  A replica MUST store conflicted versions of the replicated
           object to allow optional human review and intervention.

      8.5  Access to replication predetermined agreements, topologies, and
           policies attributes MUST be provided through LDAP access.

      8.6  The capability to check the differences between two replicas
           for the same information SHOULD be provided for. This should
           entail a client invoking an operation at some server, which
           causes that server to extract the contents from some other
           server it has a replication agreement with and report the
           differences back to the client as the result.

      8.7  Authenticated access SHOULD be provided so that Administrative
           LDAP clients may query a server for the current state and
           replication history for each replica that the server maintains
           replication agreements with.

      8.8  The ability to view replication conflicts, and override the
           resolution derived by the replication policy MUST be provided.

      8.9  The deletion of sensitive data MUST be handled in an orderly
           manner so that at no time will that data be available without
           proper access control. That is, access control information
           (ACI) associated with sensitive data must be deleted after or
           simultaneously with the delete of the sensitive data. Likewise,
           when adding sensitive data, ACI MUST be added first or
           simultaneously with the addition of that data.

  9. Acknowledgement

      This document is based on input from IETF members interested in LDUP
      Replication.

         Weiser & Stokes       21 April 2000                   [Page 14]

         INTERNET-DRAFT     LDAP Replication Requirements     21 October 1999

  10. References

      [RFC2251]  M. Wahl, T. Howes, S. Kille "Lightweight Directory Access
      Protocal", RFC 2251.

      [RFC2119]  S.Bradner, " Key words for use in RFCs to indicate
      Requirement Levels", RFC 2119.

      [LDIF]  Gordon Good, "The LDAP Data Interchange Format (LDIF)",
      Internet draft,  draft-ietf-asid-ldif-00.txt, November 1996.

      [Changelog]  Gordon Good, "Definitions of an Object Class to Hold
      LDAP Change records", Internet Draft, draft-ietf-asid-changelog-
      00.txt,  November  1996.

      [X.501] ITU-T Recommendation X.501 (1993), | ISO/IEC 9594-2: 1993,
      Information Technology - Open Systems Interconnection - The
      Directory: Models

      [XEROX] Hauser, C. "Managing update conflicts in Bayou, a weakly
      connected replicated storage system". Palo Alto, CA: Xerox PARC,
      Computer Science Laboratory; 1995 August; CSL-95-4. [CSL-95-04]

   11. Author's Address

      Russel F. Weiser
      Digital Signature Trust Co.
      One South Main Street
      Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
      USA

      E-mail: [email-masked]
      Telephone: +1-801-983-4415
      Fax +1-801-983-4408

      Ellen J. Stokes
      IBM
      11400 Burnet Rd.
      Austin, Texas 78758
      USA

      E-mail: [email-masked]
      Telephone: +1-512-838-3725
      Fax: +1-512-838-0156

         Weiser & Stokes       21 April 2000                   [Page 15]

---

From: Chris Apple <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 17:18:51 -0500

When it is available in the repository, we'll issue a request
that it be considered for IETF Last Call by the IESG.

Chris.