Re: comments on draft-zeilenga-ldup-sync (was Re: LDAP Client Update: consideration of alternative proposals)

Ryan Moats wrote:
>  
> Well I've re-looked at these both and I've got concerns/questions about
> each of them.  This second piece of mail addresses one technical/process
> concern I have with draft-ietf-ldup-lcup-05.txt.
> 
> There was a suggestion (from me) that the initial backoff period be
> specified with the lcupResourcesExhausted error.  This had some support,
> but I have never seen a reply on this issue.  
> 
> I still think that having the server specify the initial backoff time
> (via an additional control) is superior to the current proposed method.

The response that Rich Megginson posted as part of the LCUP last call 
reply basically says that clients have sufficient flexibility. But 
thinking about this again, I think this is a valid concern and that it 
would be an improvement to have the server specify the initial retry 
delay. Clients of course should be free to wait even longer if they 
choose to do so, use any variety of retry strategies, etc.

For reference, here is the start of the relevant email thread:
      http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/msg01528.html

-Mark Smith
  Netscape