RE: [dsml] Fwd: What's the Status of DSML version 1 at OASIS?

[Jeff Parham <jeffparh@windows.microsoft.com>]

Title: Message

The original goal of maintaining consistency with DSMLv1 was pretty quickly abandoned by the TC.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Gullotta [mailto:TGullotta@access360.com]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 12:46 PM
To: 'Christine Tomlinson'; Tony Gullotta
Cc: 'rowley@netscape.com'; James Tauber - mValent; dsml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dsml] Fwd: What's the Status of DSML version 1 at OASIS?

Aren't items such as attributes, classes, and distinguished names leveraged from v1. I guess I've always thought of v2 building upon v1 to introduce operations performed on the data defined in v1.

 

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: Christine Tomlinson [mailto:chris.tomlinson@sun.com]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 12:34 PM
To: Tony Gullotta
Cc: 'rowley@netscape.com'; James Tauber - mValent; dsml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [dsml] Fwd: What's the Status of DSML version 1 at OASIS?

I'm unclear as to how v2 depends on v1. The WG explicitly did not require that v2 maintain backwards compatability with v1 and there are several areas in which v2 does things differently than v1.

ciao,
Christine Tomlinson

Tony Gullotta wrote:

 It makes sense that the content of v1 should be approved too, but not separately. V2 depends on v1. I don't see how v2 could be approved without v1. To approve them separately would only make sense if v1 was approved first, which would most likely slow things down alot for v2. So, I would assume they would both be up for approval at the same time?Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: rowley@netscape.com [mailto:rowley@netscape.com]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 12:02 PM
To: Karl F. Best
Cc: James Tauber - mValent; Winston Bumpus; dsml@lists.oasis-open.org; jeff
Subject: Re: [dsml] Fwd: What's the Status of DSML version 1 at OASIS?
 

Karl F. Best wrote:

NEBBIDFFILNKGAMPGDFKCEBCIIAA.karl.best@oasis-open.org type="cite">

James Kobielus is quite correct that giving DSMLv1 any
official OASIS status
would require a separate vote.
The DSML TC should decide whether this is something they
would like to do.

Is v1 a different spec such that it must be approved separately from v2?
Or does v2 supercede v1 so that v1 is now obsolete? DSML v2 is now out
for OASIS member review, and will be voted upon during the month of
April. So I'm wondering if v1 needs to be approved.

The two specifications address different needs.  v1 is a directory data representation format similar to LDIF whereas v2 is a protocol alternative to LDAP.  Although v2 may also "represent" directory data, it does so by intertwining the data with operational directives.  That means that to use a v2 data dump to initialise a new server instance one must use a utility of some kind to transform the protocol elements from their "read" form to their "write" form.  v1 has no such requirement since it has no operational component and hence is arguably more convenient (and also arguably more human readable) than v2 for this kind of use.  In my view v2 does not really supercede v1 since it does not provide an operation agnostic representation of the data, therefore the two specifications are complimentary.
 

-- 
Pete Rowley
Developer
Netscape Directory Server