Re: Is this really an LCUP show stopper?

Jonghyuk Choi wrote:
> 
> Let me take the LDAP Proxy cache as an example. It's an important
> application, even though it may just add another to the examples that
> make LCUP look bad. LDAP Proxy Cache caches LDAP results from LDAP servers
> based on client queries. If a query is answerable from the proxy cache,
> it returns LDAP result directly without contacting the server. If it's not,
> it fetches results from the LDAP server and returns them to the client.
> A client update protocol can be used to synchronize cached entries with
> the server. Clients can request various search criteria to the LDAP 
> Proxy Cache
> which in turn will send LCUP requests with various search criteria to 
> the server.
> A good protocol needs be scalable and consider a wide range of the current
> and also future applications.

Agreed, and the proxy is a good example where flexibility is needed and 
where implementors will do what they do best: figure out a way to 
achieve their performance and scalability goals while living within the 
contraints of an IETF-defined protocol. My real point is that different 
LDAP implementators have different needs, and we need to give 
implementors sufficient flexibility to make appropriate engineering 
tradeoffs. I think draft-ietf-ldup-lcup-05 strikes a very good balance 
amoing a large set of competing needs; you and a Kurt at least disagree.

-- 
Mark Smith
Netscape Directory Product Development
My words are my own, not my employer's.