Subject: Inconsistencies in LDUP Requirements draft

From: [email-masked] (Richard V Huber)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 13:50:51 -0400

I sent this email out to the list a few weeks ago.  This turned out to
be part of the limbo period between the time the authors turned in the
new draft and the time is was posted to the official repository.

These inconsistencies still seem to be present in the -01 draft, so I'd
like to submit these comments again as part of the WG last call.

Rick Huber

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
I think there are some some inconsistencies with MUST/SHOULD/MAY in 
draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-00.txt that should be cleaned up before
last call.

      5.5  The replication model SHOULD allow for administrative
	   initiation of replication cycle for any replica that may
	   have just come back online or was unavailable previously
	   replication cycles.

      8.2  Allowance for non-scheduled replication of a replica MUST be
	   provided upon request such that the replica server has been
	   down or unconnected for a period of time.

These seem to be pretty much the same requirement, so I feel they
should both be SHOULD or both be MUST.  I prefer MUST (or delete 5.5
and let 8.2 stand as the requirement).  (The phrase "was unavailable
previously replication cycles" in 5.5 could use rewording as well  -
perhaps "was unavailable during previous replication cycles"?)

      8.4  A replica MAY store conflicted versions of the replicated
	   object to allow optional human review and intervention.

      8.8  The ability to view replication conflicts, and override the
	   resolution derived by the replication policy MUST be
	   provided.

8.4 allows implementors to throw away conflicted versions if you want
to.  But 8.8 seems to require that this data be present so it can be
used if the operator chooses to override.8.  My preference is to change
8.4 to MUST (or to delete 8.4 and let 8.8 stand as the requirement).

Rick Huber