Florido Paganelli [mailto:florido.paganelli@hep.lu.se] said:
C1) Rewrite of Section 3.7: Directory Information Tree
I've described my position on this several times, basically I don't agree with the proposed changes. I'm not going to change my view and it doesn't seem that Florido is either, so someone else will have to arbitrate. One point I would make is that the XML discussion seems to have gone in the opposite direction - at the start Florido wanted the LDAP tree to match the XML hierarchy, but now the XML is almost completely flat which is a more extreme position than I propose for LDAP, where I do think that grouping by Service and AdminDomain is useful - although not essential. If we wanted to remove all references to the tree from the document and leave it to be completely implementation-defined I would probably prefer that to defining the tree more rigidly.
C2) Section 3.5 Datatypes We corrected the datatypes to match the current LDAP schema used by EMI.
As we somewhat discussed a while ago, this is a real problem and not just a textual change. We need to discuss it as a separate item - it's not only relevant to LDAP.
C3) All over the document: followed the RFC4512 terminology, e.g. renamed "ldap objects" to "ldap entries".
I would also reject that - it's true that the technically correct term is "entry" but I think it just makes the document less comprehensible, I would be surprised if many people would understand what "entry" means.
The following open questions arised during the review, and we would like the group to discuss them:
I think discussing these is pointless, they were decided, implemented and deployed long ago, so it's much too late to reopen them. If Nordugrid want to develop a completely new implementation they should start a new document. Stephen