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.

Alex

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com> wrote:
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
Hi,

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 ?

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.

--
 -- Howard Chu
 CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
 Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
 Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/