Comments on last call for simple caching scheme

[Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com>]

Mark, Tim, Luke, Harald,

     RE: LAST CALL: draft-ietf-asid-ldap-cache-01

The last call prompted me to review the caching draft.   I apologise
for not reviewing this sooner.

A number of comments

1) I do not feel that there has been sufficient experience in this
area to justify this specification being standards track.   I believe
that it should be published as experimental, and a decision to move to
standards track made subsequently based on experience.   The primary
reason for this is that this function will have a complex interaction
with other replication and caching schemes, and I do not think it
makes sense to standardize this in isolation.

2) The title should be changed from "a simple caching scheme...." to a
"a simple CLIENT caching scheme....".

3) The note needs to make clear:
   - relationship to potential work on per-attribute TTLs
   - relationship to potential work on SERVER based TTLs
   - relationship to systematic replication schemes
   - that dynamic entries will NOT use this


4) I think that the attribute should NOT be called TTL, as those
familiar with DNS will make incorrect assumptions about how it works.
I would suggest that the attribute is called "Client Advisory Entry
Caching Time Period".

5) I think that the problem of server caching is particularly
important, and there will in practice be a relationship.   This needs
a lot of work.


I hope that this is useful input


regards


Steve Kille