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

> No judgment implied at all - just trying to understand
> your position.

My primary concern is that LCUP peers while fail to
interoperate because the client cared too much about
the contents of something it really should treat as
as an opaque.

Now, I do concede the point that to support future extension
of LCUP (for example, to support LDAP Replication) may
require specification of the cookie to be exchanged by
those supporting that extension. 

The authors have stated that their next revision would
include 'sufficient' language to address the above
interoperability concern.

While you may not yet fully understand my concerns (and
I don't fully understand yours), I think the authors have
a decent enough grasp of our concerns (based upon MarkS's
and RichM comments) for them to take a stab at addressing
both of our concerns.

Kurt