Having the same CSN structure will eventually facilitate compatibility with OpenLDAP and also the -09 version is much newer than the -02 so why not.
Hm, I was co-authoring an update of Jim Sermersheim's draft, to standardize on the OpenLDAP format. We never published it, I guess that may be my fault. But I expect that the OpenLDAP format is the one that will progress to the IETF, so obviously I recommend sticking with that.Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
currently, for replication, we are using a CSN built from
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sermersheim-ldap-csn-02 (more or less).
In fact, our CSN is a composition of a timestamp
(System.currentMillis()), an operation operationSequence and a
replicaId. It is constructed this way :
timestamp:replicaId:operationSequence (no padding)
It's not what OpenLDAP is using. OpenLDAP is based on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ldup-model-09, and a CSN is
constructed this way :
* The format of a CSN string is: yyyymmddhhmmssz#s#r#c
* where s is a counter of operations within a timeslice, r is
* the replica id (normally zero), and c is a counter of
* modifications within this operation. s, r, and c are
* represented in hex and zero padded to lengths of 6, 3, and
* 6, respectively. (In previous implementations r was only 2 digits.)
So far, both CSN are incompatible. We could write translators, but I
also think that it would be great to avoid having a different structure.
Does it makes sense to you ?
-- Howard Chu
CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/