[glue-wg] LDAP rendering document: new version as an outcome of Lund review

[Andre Merzky]

Hia,

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:33 PM,  <stephen.burke at stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
> glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Balazs Konya said:
>> I've just uploaded a new version of the "GLUE v. 2.0 – Reference
>> Realization to LDAP Schema" ldap rendering draft to the glue2 gridforge
>> area. The uploaded new version contains comments and tracks all the
>> changes we made in the document.
>
> I haven't yet read the new document in detail, but as the author of the previous version I have a few general comments. Firstly, I don't think it's accurate to describe this as a revision of the existing document; it seems to be substantially a new document describing a significantly different rendering. I would personally prefer to separate textual and minor technical comments on the existing text from substantive changes to the structure.

FWIW, significant normative changes will most likely result in a new
GFD number for the document, to avoid confusion over what
implementation is implementing what specification.

My $0.02, Andre.



>  Secondly, the history of this is that the LDAP rendering was discussed in this mailing list and in open meetings in mid-2009, the resulting LDAP schema was then implemented and we've spent nearly three years deploying it in production in EGEE and EGI. Given the practicalities of deployment I think it's essentially impossible to make any backward-incompatible changes at this stage, and even backward-compatible changes would probably take several years to propagate across the whole Grid, so regardless of how the document changes the major existing implementation is basically fixed.
>
>  The previous document was intended to correspond to what was actually implemented but may not do so in every respect - for example it seems that we failed to change string types from IA5String to DirectoryString in the deployed schema. I think that's unfortunate but we will in practice have to live with it as a restriction (as we did for GLUE 1) - in that case we could change the schema since it would be backward-compatible, but it would be a long time before non-ASCII characters could be used reliably.
>
>  It is of course possible to have variant implementations, and to some extent variants can be covered by a single document, e.g. it was explicitly intended to allow the DIT to be flexible. However, at some point if it's really desired to have renderings which differ in major ways I think it would be better to have separate documents.
>
> Stephen
> _______________________________________________
> glue-wg mailing list
> glue-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg



-- 
Nothing is ever easy...