Re: Fwd: multi-master replication RFC reference

Rich Megginson <rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx> · Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:02:11 -0600



    On 08/17/2013 09:47 AM, Archimedes
      Gaviola wrote:

    
          On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Rich
            Megginson <rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
            wrote:

            
                  On 08/16/2013 12:22 AM, Archimedes Gaviola wrote:

                  
                          Hi,
                           
                          I would like to know if 389 DS
                            closely follow this RFC specs http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3384 for

                            multi-master replication support
                        
                      
                It is based on that work.  But it diverges in a few
                places. 

              
                          since then it is not included in the
                            lists of standards here http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Documentation.
                            If yes, what requirements are already
                            supported and what are not?
                        
                      
                For what reason are you asking?  Note that there are no
                directory servers that implement complete support for
                RFC 3384.

                
            That would be fine for now just as long as this RFC is
              the reference basis for multi-master replication
          
        
    Multi-master replication in 389?

    
            because I'll be using it as a supporting reference
              document for my ongoing research on LDAP multi-master
              replication.
          
        
    Cross vendor multi-master replication?  AFAIK, only
    Netscape/iPlanet/Sun/389 derived servers support the LDUP RFCs, and
    only a subset of the LDUP RFCs.  Novell eDir probably supports some
    of LDUP too.

    
            Any idea what makes any directory server
              implementations don't have complete support on this RFC?
          
        
    The LDUP working group never reached a satisfactory conclusion with
    working implementations.  The Netscape implementation was based on
    early work of the LDUP working group, but diverged in some ways, and
    in other ways didn't keep up with later work by the LDUP group.

    
            Are there any requirements conflicting or not
              appropriate to architectural design of any
              implementations?

            
    Well, I suppose I could go through the LDUP RFCs point-by-point to
    figure out where 389 diverges, but that's not really an exercise I
    care to undertake.

    
    If you're asking for a list of all of the places where 389 is in
    accord with the LDUP RFCs, and a list of all of the places where 389
    diverges, and the reasons why, there is no such list.

    
            Thanks a lot!

              
                          Thanks a lot!
                           
                          Best regards,
                          Archimedes
                        
                      
                      --
389 users mailing list
389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
                    
                
--
389 users mailing list
389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users