RE: 3. "Change Reports - ProtocolOps or Primitives"

[Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Replication out of sequence does not require a restart, as
long as changes are presented in order per replica.  I would
highly recommend text stating that changes from each replica
MUST be transmitted in strictly increasing CSN order.  My
current implementation stores and transmits changes from each
replica separately, in CSN order.  This makes implementation a
lot easier for everyone.  I don't see any problem with
requiring this.

>[Albert]
>I agree that the number of bytes is a non-issue. As a
separate matter,
>allowing replication out of sequence requires a restart from
the beginning
>to ensure update vectors are synchronized whenever a
replication session
>is interrupted. That is most likely to happen on connection
oriented links
>where
>bandwidth is most costly.
>
>I mentioned in email to Ed and will now repeat here, that
this is especially
>a problem for "sometimes connected" or dialup DSAs that may
need to
>interrupt
>a "supplier push" session to a Hub from another dialup DSA in
order to
>obtain
>a session for the same replicated area, given that only one
consumer session
>can be handled at a time by the Hub.
>
>Likewise, use of timestamps requires a full reload rather
than incremental
>to get back into sync after failures, which causes bandwidth
spikes.
>
>Both of these "features" of the current architecture draft
are not inherent
>in URP but easily fixed. So far nothing has been done to fix
them.