https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9719
--- Comment #2 from Ondřej Kuzník <[email protected]> --- On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 02:22:19PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > Pretty sure this has always been the intended behavior, even if not spelled > out > in the RFC. You can check against the original syncrepl implementation in 2.2. > > No bug here. The consumer doesn't update its local cookie if none was received > from the provider. The problem is that a cookie is sent and it's an empty string, given the client is supposed to treat them as completely opaque string, there is enough background in the RFC to suggest it should be taken at face value. I don't think you'd ever suggest TXN implementation in back-mdb sending the same cookie ("") as the transaction identifier should be interpreted by the client in any way either, you just expect it to send it back unmodified. Same here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the issue.
