RE: Is State-based LDUP needed?

Tim,

Timothy Hahn wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Steven Legg wrote:
>>
>> I think it boils down to two questions.
>>
>> Q1: Do we insist that replication primitives are always sent in
>> CSN order per replica ID ?
>>
>> Q2: Do we insist that superseded primitives are propagated anyway ?
>
> My opinion on these two questions are:
>
> Q1: I vote "yes" to this one.
>
> Q2: I could go either way on this.  It would seem we would be "more
correct,
> more of the time" if we insisted that superseded primitives are
propagated -
> at the expense of a little more information being sent during replication
> sessions.  However, it would appear that LDUP will work either way (after
> all, "eventual consistency" is what is required).  Thus, I would allow
this
> as an implementation choice - i.e. superseded primitives MAY (or MAY NOT)
be
> propagated.  I also think that it is in the best interests of all involved
if
> the update reconciliation procedures draft (or the update replication
> protocol draft) points out the issues involved if superseded primitives
are
> NOT sent.  (It seems a shame that this analysis would only be documented
in
> the mailing list archives).

I can expand the section in URP on superseded primitives to point out the
issues if the consensus on Q2 is "no". If the consensus is "yes" then I
will instead be taking out all the provisions for state-based
implementations.

Regards,
Steven