Re: LCUP Comment/Question

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

At 07:18 AM 7/1/2003, Richard V Huber wrote:
>Two comments on the LCUP draft:
>
>[CANCEL] (draft-zeilenga-ldap-cancel-08.txt) is given as a normative
>reference but it is still an Internet Draft.  Since LCUP is intended
>for standards track, doesn't this mean LCUP cannot be published as an
>RFC until [CANCEL] is an RFC?

Approved documents wait at the RFC-Editor for their normative
references to catch up.

>So what is the status of [CANCEL]?

I am presently considering making a recommendation to advance
this I-D.

>I don't remember a last call on it but I might have missed it.

Stay tuned to <ldapext@xxxxxxxx> (for an informal call) and
the IETF announce list (for the formal call).

>Should the Applicability section (Section 2) say something about the
>expected behavior of LCUP in a replicated environment?  In particular,
>when an LCUP client disconnects and then reconnects, which case do we
>have:
>
> 1. LCUP is defined to work if it reconnects to ANY server holding a
>    replica of the LCUP Context?
>
> 2. LCUP is defined to work only if it connects to the SAME replica
>    that it was previously connected to?
>
> 3. this situation is undefined by LCUP and is determined by the
>    implementation?
>
> 4. something else?

I note that the WG should likely consider LCUP's behavior in
replicated environments where the replication protocol (DISP,
LDUP) allows replication events to be coalesced.

Kurt