Re: LCUP Comment/Question

John McMeeking wrote:
> ... Maybe some words like:
> 
> Use of an LCUP cookie with multiple DSAs in a replicated environment is not
> defined by LCUP.  An implementation of LCUP may support continuation of a
> LCUP session with another DSA holding a replica of the LCUP context.  In
> such cases, the implementation should document the LCUP Scheme used.  In
> the absence of knowledge about such support the client should not use a
> LCUP cookie with any DSA other than the DSA which issued the original
> cookie.
> 
> Or something that conveys the notion that it isn't defined by LCUP, but
> isn't prohibited.  And leave the door open for vendors (or later standards)
> to address this.  And the "document the scheme" part needn't involve
> defining an OID and having the client request that format.  I'd hope that
> an implementation of LCUP in an replicated environment would support this
> with its default LCUP scheme.

My too. I thought we discussed this before... LCUP needs to allow 
implementations to support using the same cookie with different 
replicas, and needs to gracefully handle the case where an 
implementation does not support it. For example, if a server does not 
recognize the cookie or can't use the information contained in it, it 
may force a full refresh... but that decision is in the hands of the 
server. I do not think there is any need for the implementation to 
document the cookie scheme or for the client to be careful in this 
case... what am I missing? Server implementations must be able to 
recognize whether a cookie presented by a client is one they sent or a 
compatible cookie (e.g., one sent by a replica).

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