Re: Separate LCUP cookie vs replication - was RE: Comments onLCU P draft - opaque cookie

I think the language in our (the LCUP authors') working version of the draft is sufficient.  As Mark said, the new version will be
out shortly.

"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:

> Well, my concern is that by labeling a value (the cookie)
> which the client should not care about will lead to
> interoperability problems as clients will start caring
> about a label which shouldn't matter.  As the value of
> the cookie matters to the protocol peer which generated
> it, the label seems quite pointless to me.  However, as
> long as there is language added to the text stating that
> the label is irrelevant to the clients implementing this
> specification, I can live with it.
>
> Kurt