Subject: Re: LCUP issue: Need for lcupReloadRequired

From: "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 23:11:16 -0600

I suppose the benefit is that in the event entries have been deleted, or
are not in the result set anymore, this two-step process lets the client
know that it's current cache may be inconsistent with the entries in the
directory.

>>> "Jim Sermersheim" <[email-masked]> 09/03/02 11:03PM >>>

Why is this error needed? It seems that if this scenario exists, the
server would simply send the full set of entries, and a new cookie.
The
current specification indicates that the client would try to sync,
receive an error, then try to sync again with an empty cookie. Is
there
a benefit to the extra step?

Jim

---

From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 22:34:22 -0700

>know that it's current cache may be inconsistent with the entries in the

IMO, an update protocol which doesn't ensure that at completion
of the synchronization that there all inconsistencies can be
detected and resolved, should be referred to as a
"content synchronization protocol".

Kurt