Comments on lcup-05
John McMeeking <[email protected]> Fri, 6 Jun 2003 15:00:38 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OFEE973863.406DB101-ON86256D3D.006BC4D8-86256D3D.006DEC9D@us.ibm.com> |
Here's some comments on draft-ietf-ldup-lcup-05.txt: 1. Overview - paragraph on state information. I would resatate this something like: "... the server does not need to maintain state information specific to individual clients. The server may need to maintain additional state information about deleted or moved/renamed entries." 3.5 (all controls). All these controls have a significant number of optional fields. I think we should add tags to simplify proper decoding of the control data. Also, given recent discussions about ASN.1 tagging, it would be appropriate to state that implicit tagging is used (if it is). 4.2.7 Result for Entries that have left the result set. There are two "An entry SHOULD be returned as having left...." clauses. It appears the second one is left over from a rewrite, as it repeats information in 4.2.5. This would make it more consistent with 4.2.6. 4.3.4/4.3.5. I think the server should be given the option of rejecting a LCUP search that includes virtual or collective attributes. If a server would normally return these attributes, it must either properly synchronize these attributes or reject the search request. Maybe a new "lcupInvalidAttribute" or "unwillingToPerform" resultCode would be appropriate. 4.4.1 Server Initiated Termination. This para references a lcupClientDisconnected resultCode. I didn't see that resultCode defined. 4.5 <What to do about this section????> This can probably be deleted, though it might be helpful earlier to explain what the synchronize and persist phases do and the sequence of requests/controls. John McMeeking