Response to the LCUP cookie format issue

One of the main goals of LCUP is that it will be lightweight and easy to

implement, both from a client and a server perspective.  Having an
opaque
cookie makes the client easier to implement, and makes the server much
easier
to implement.  Another thing that worries me about defining the cookie
format
is that we may end up dragging a lot of LDUP into this, which may mean a

dependence on an LDUP implementation before we can implement LCUP, and
that
is definitely contrary to the goals of LCUP.

However, we (the authors of LCUP) do see the need to have a known cookie

format to foster interoperability at some point in the future.  To
acheive
this goal, Mark Smith has proposed the following:
Specify that the cookie format is <scheme>-<payload> where the scheme is

an OID that can be implementation specific for now but an LDUP scheme
will be defined also.  In other words, LCUP provides the hook to allow
cookie formats to be common but does not mandate they be common.

Note that use of an opaque cookie format or use of a
<scheme>-<payload> extensible format will NOT prevent an LCUP client
from vendor A from interoperating with an LCUP server from vendor B.