Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ldup-lcup-04.txt

At 03:14 PM 3/10/2003, John Merrells wrote:
>Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
>>Well, I thin that if we believe that certain implementation
>>approaches would lead to implementations which would do harm,
>>that we should state these beliefs and, where appropriate,
>>detail implementation-approach-neutral imperatives of what
>>behaviors are considered harmful.  
>In other words you're suggesting that the specification document that implementors should implement the specification correctly.

I'm suggesting the specification discuss areas where the
implementor should take care not to do harm.

>>Lack of "eventual convergence data consistency" 
>What does LCUP currently state?

Presently, the I-D is a bit lacking in its data consistency
statements.  It needs to be more explicit in stating that
servers are to either generate messages which will lead to
convergence or return an error.  This, I think, can be resolved
by rewording portions of 3.3.7.

>You're looking for a guarentee from LCUP that the client state be
>exactly the same as a server state at some point?

I am looking for the LCUP to be designed to support content
synchronization with eventual convergent data consistency.

I'm not yet convinced that LCUP provides this, hence this
dialog.

>>and/or "overly chattiness" would be harmful.
>That's implementation defined.

Chattiness should be defined in terms of the protocol
and the operations they perform.  Not only should
protocols be designed to avoid overly chattiness,
where the protocol implementation allows for
chatty protocol exchanges, the specification should
discuss chattiness issues and state appropriate
imperatives.

The LCUP I-D makes some statements in this area, I believe
more is necessary and will over specific suggestions
at a later date.

Kurt