Fwd: multi-master replication RFC reference

[Archimedes Gaviola]

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
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?

Thanks a lot!

Best regards,
Archimedes

[Rich Megginson]

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.
> Thanks a lot!
> Best regards,
> Archimedes
>
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

[Archimedes Gaviola]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Rich Megginson  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 because I'll be using it as a supporting
reference document for my ongoing research on LDAP multi-master
replication. Any idea what makes any directory server implementations don't
have complete support on this RFC? Are there any requirements conflicting
or not appropriate to architectural design of any implementations?

Thanks a lot!
> Thanks a lot!
>
> Best regards,
> Archimedes
>
> --
> 389 users mailing [e-mail]://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

[Rich Megginson]

On 08/17/2013 09:47 AM, Archimedes Gaviola wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Rich Megginson <[e-mail] 
> > 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
> > [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

[Archimedes Gaviola]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
> On 08/17/2013 09:47 AM, Archimedes Gaviola wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Rich Megginson 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?

Yes Rich, multi-master replication in 389 DS only.
> 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.

Cross vendor multi-master replication is not part of the scope of
my implementation for now but probably in the future I might tackle this
so, thanks in advance in giving me hints/info on other implementations LDUP
support.
> 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.

Alright don't worry, I'll observe how the multi-master replication
behavior goes and cross check the RFC.
> 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.

Ok, got it and thanks for answering my questions. Really appreciate it and
now I know the story behind.
> Thanks a lot!
> > Thanks a lot!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Archimedes
> >
> > --
> > 389 users mailing [e-mail]://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

389-DS Changelog

[Denise Cosso]

Hi,

I have installed on my machine the centos-389 (389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-22.el6_4.x86_64) and I'm studying the replica LDAP -> AD.

The replica worked, with the exception of the password. In my base the password is encrypted in SHA256, well managed by the system sending the password in plain text to AD. Changelog could encrypt the password in AES.

I did a test back to base AD and tried to send the changes to AD (send update) but it did not work.

Does anyone know how do I reprocess the Changelog?

I await the return,

Thank you,

Denise