LCUP applicability

LCUP's applicability statement, I think, needs a bit of work.
The "will work best" phrase, I find a bit odd, seems these
are more "design assumptions".  Anyways...

The first item implies that LCUP "works" when the server
maintains no historical information.  It should be clear,
that without historical information, the server can only
determine that change occurred since the time indicated by
the cookie, not what that change was.  Hence, only if there
were no changes in the context, the could the server could respond
successfully.  In any change occurred in the context, the
server would have to fail with lcupReloadRequired.

The second item says the client is not assumed to understand
the "physical information model" implemented by the
server, however it provides as instances of the physical
model "virtual attributes, operational attributes, [and]subentries".  I think the authors meant LCUP assumes
only knowledge of the "directory user information model"
[X.501(93)].  Anyways, I think LCUP does require the
client to understand directory administrative and
operational models in certain areas.  For example, as
LCUP doesn't support alias dereferencing during searching,
a user client desiring aliases objects has to understand
alias objects.  I assume it does so to reduce complexity.
There are other cases where assuming or requiring client
knowledge of aspects of select administrative and operational
models would significant reduce complexity and/or chattiness.

With regard to the third item, I think LCUP has significant
problems dealing with a number of everyday DIT update
situations and forces full reloads far too frequently.
I'll post a more detailed discussion of this in a separate
message at a later time.

Kurt