RE: LCUP and eventual convergence

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 08:53 AM 5/23/2003, Chris Apple wrote:
>As WG Co-Chair, I consider this issue to be resolved.

I content that the fundamental issues raised during the
previous WG last call are not yet resolved.  That is,
I disagree that the editor of draft-ietf-ldup-lcup has
adequately addressed these issues.


>Rich has pointed out
>in another posting associated with this thread that the existing language
>in the document actually does address the issue of eventual convergence.
>As WG Co-Chair, I am satisfied that the authors have reflected previously
>established WG Consensus on this issue.
>
>We can work through any word-smithing or clarification language during
>WG Last Call.
>
>The WG Last Call announcement on LCUP will be posted to the list over
>this coming weekend (perhaps even late today). Would do it now, but I'm
>en route and have limited time to stay connected.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ietf-ldup@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ietf-ldup@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
>Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 5:55 PM
>To: rmegginson0224@xxxxxxx
>Cc: ietf-ldup@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: LCUP and eventual convergence
>
>
>
>At 01:24 PM 5/1/2003, Rich Megginson wrote:
>>If the current LCUP wording is not sufficient to convey this mandate, then
>may I ask for a suggestion of how to reword it?
>
>        In response to an LCUP request, the server SHALL either:
>                a) generate the sequence of messages necessary for
>                   eventual convergence of the client's copy of
>                   the content to the server's copy of the content,
>
>                b) indicate that a reload is required by returning
>                   lcupReloadRequired, or
>
>                c) return an resultCode other than success or
>                  lcupReloadRequired.
>
>Kurt