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
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 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.com 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 list389-users@lists.fedoraproject.orghttps://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
On 08/17/2013 09:47 AM, Archimedes Gaviola wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com> 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 supportIt 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@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.comwrote:
On 08/17/2013 09:47 AM, Archimedes Gaviola wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Rich Megginson rmeggins@redhat.comwrote:
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 list389-users@lists.fedoraproject.orghttps://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
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
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Archimedes Gaviola -
Denise Cosso -
Rich Megginson