Subject: RE: Changelog entries draft. Do not seem to find it.

From: "Salter, Thomas A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:32:02 -0500

I think the changelog draft should be standardized.  It provides a simple,
but useful feature.  It's been implemented by more that one server and
probably lots of clients.

Perhaps it should include a disclaimer that it provides an interim solution
until LDUP/LCUP mechanisms are defined and implemented.

Accountability can be provided by adding createTimestamp and creatorsName to
the changeLog entries.  These are implied anyway, since change log records
are defined as though they are entries in the directory, and all directory
entries MAY contain these operational attributes.

---

From: [email-masked] (Gordon Good)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 13:52:56 -0800

> entries MAY contain these operational attributes.

I agree, with the caveat that supporting an LDAP-accessible changelog exactly as
described in the internet draft may be very difficult in an environment
featuring multi-master replication.

As James Benedict mentioned, it would be very helpful to have an inventory of
planned and existing applications that use changelogs. I've heard several
mentioned on this mailing list - are there others?

I have a strong suspicion that these applications will fall into one of a small
number of classes, and that some of these classes may be better served by a
newer client synchronization protocol that combines ideas from our Persistent
Search draft, Innosoft's Triggered Search draft, and Microsoft's Dirsync draft.
A first draft of that was posted to the [email-masked] and
[email-masked] mailing lists yesterday.

-Gordon

---

From: [email-masked] (Gordon Good)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:55:51 -0800

I've refreshed the changelog draft. It's now available from the IETF Internet Drafts
repository:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-good-ldap-changelog-01.txt

-Gordon