Subject: Re: [Ecrit] I-D Action:draft-ietf-ecrit-lost-sync-08.txt

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:33:27 +0200

Thanks for your comment below. I updated the draft accordingly.

Ciao
Hannes

---

Hannes,

I just noticed the following misleading sentence in lost-sync, Section 3.3:

In this example a request is made
   for a specific mapping (with source="authoritative.bar.example" and
   sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66") that is more recent than
   "2006-11-01T01:00:00Z".

Since a getMappingsRequest with <exists> does not only request updates
of the existing mappings but also missing ones, I would suggest to
make that explicit in the explanation of the example:

In this example a request is made
   for a specific mapping (with source="authoritative.bar.example" and
   sourceId="7e3f40b098c711dbb6060800200c9a66") that is more recent than
   "2006-11-01T01:00:00Z" as well as any missing mapping.

Would this make the example clearer?

Karl heinz