RE: LCUP and eventual convergence

As WG Co-Chair, I consider this issue to be resolved. Rich has pointed out
in another posting associated with this thread that the existing language
in the document actually does address the issue of eventual convergence.
As WG Co-Chair, I am satisfied that the authors have reflected previously
established WG Consensus on this issue.

We can work through any word-smithing or clarification language during
WG Last Call.

The WG Last Call announcement on LCUP will be posted to the list over
this coming weekend (perhaps even late today). Would do it now, but I'm
en route and have limited time to stay connected.



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Kurt D. Zeilenga
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 5:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: LCUP and eventual convergence



At 01:24 PM 5/1/2003, Rich Megginson wrote:
>If the current LCUP wording is not sufficient to convey this mandate, then
may I ask for a suggestion of how to reword it?

        In response to an LCUP request, the server SHALL either:
                a) generate the sequence of messages necessary for
                   eventual convergence of the client's copy of
                   the content to the server's copy of the content,

                b) indicate that a reload is required by returning
                   lcupReloadRequired, or

                c) return an resultCode other than success or
                  lcupReloadRequired.

Kurt