LCUP: cookie schemes, why?
"Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email protected]> Sat, 14 Sep 2002 19:22:08 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
The document doesn't adequately describe why cookie schemes are necessary... in particular, why would a client ever want to request a particular scheme? How would a client determine which schemes where supported by the server? And, if the server is allowed to support differ schemes in different subtrees, how would a client determine which schemes where supported in which subtrees. From past discussions, the main purpose of the scheme was to facilitate protocol operations in replicated environments. That is, where the client resumes an LCUP session on a different server then that which provided the cookie, the scheme allows the server to determine the cookie format used by the other server. If the doesn't recognize the scheme, it can return an error (or a referral to the servers which do understand the scheme?). I don't see any need to allow the client to request particular cookie schemes. If there is a need for this, then we need to make sure adequate discovery mechanisms are provided so that client can which schemes are supported where (yuk). If there is no reason, I suggest that no means be provided to allow a client to request a particular scheme. If later some need arises, LCUP can be extended. That extension would have to deal with scheme discovery issues. Kurt