Re: LCUP: convergence?
"Timothy Hahn" <[email protected]> Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:20:35 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi all, I agree with Kurt on this. I believe that the LCUP draft needs to clearly state that "eventual convergence" is the goal and show how the protocol can, indeed, be used to get there (through appropriate use of synchronize, or synchronizeAndPersist operations, for example). Right now, it is unclear how to use the protocol to get "eventual convergence" in a client. Also to be covered should be a discussion of when it can be assumed by the client to be "safe" to use only "persistOnly" and still be sure of gaining "eventual convergence". Equally important is a discussion of how clients will know that, with the request that was made, "eventual convergence" cannot be ensured by the server. (so that a client can re-formulate its held data and LCUP request(s). Regards, Tim Hahn Internet: [email protected] Internal: Timothy Hahn/Durham/IBM@IBMUS phone: 919.224.1565 tie-line: 8/687.1565 fax: 919.224.2540 "Kurt D. Zeilenga" To: <[email protected]> <[email protected] cc: g> Subject: LCUP: convergence? Sent by: owner-ietf-ldup@m ail.imc.org 09/11/2002 01:18 PM In my analysis of the various possible uses of LCUP, I see a strong requirement for the protocol to provide "eventual convergence" of the synchronized content. However, in reviewing the LCUP I-D (see previously posts for details), I see that it provides for only "lossy convergence". That is, LCUP I-D allows the synchronized content to diverge. It is not clear to me that "lossy convergence" meets the needs of the applications described in the document. What's convergence level(s) are intended to be supported by this protocol? Kurt