RE: Message Pushing and TCP Transport

[Peter Chow <peter@gmo.jp>]

Chris,

I was at the Provreg meeting and there was at least one
implementor who was concerned with the extra complexity
introduced by the push mechanism.

As a registrar, we would only want the push mechanism to
be added to the protocol only if there is a clear advantage of
it over polling.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Bason, Chris wrote:

> Eric, per your suggestion I revisited the message thread you referred
> to. As far as I can tell there are no comments in that particular
> thread about polling vs. pushing transfer notifications. There certainly
> is no consensus on this topic in the thread. Furthermore, based on the
> WG mailing list to date, I have not seen a majority consensus in any
> message thread that identifies pushing notifications as an acceptable
> addition to the protocol.
>
> Let me just restate then what I am looking for and why. I saw Scott
> Hollenbeck's message on the list, "WG Discussion Summary with Draft
> Document Impact" stating the following:
>
> ...
> Eric's XRP presentation and subsequent discussion led to a reopening of the
> message polling vs. message pushing discussion.  Folks in the room seemed to
> support the idea of having both mechanisms in the base protocol, with the
> client having the ability to select a delivery mechanism from among those
> offered by the server.  Eric will offer up suggested text to be added to the
> EPP draft(s).
> ...
>
> This statement concerns me. Let me then rephrase the question:
> 1) What justification was given that received so much support for pushing
> transfer notifications where there was little support before?
> 2) What is advantageous about using a push mechanism for transfer
> notification in our current registry/registrar model over
> using a pull mechanism?
>
> I personally see no advantage. Although, I do see several disadvantages,
> one of which is the unnecessary complexity that will be added to the
> protocol. If there are no clear advantages for using a push method then
> it should not be added to the protocol.
>
> Chris Bason
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
> [mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:51 PM
> To: Bason, Chris
> Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'; brunner@nic-naa.net
> Subject: Re: Message Pushing and TCP Transport
>
>
> > Would someone please elaborate on why this push concept
> > is advantageous to EPP (preferably a PUSH proponent)?
>
> The issue has been discussed quite a few times on the list, not just at -50
> and -51. See the general discussion of transfer notification.
>
> Eric
>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
_/_/_/ Peter Chow		Chief Technical Advisor
_/_/_/ peter@gmo.jp		Global Media Online Inc.
_/_/_/				System Division
_/_/_/ ICQ: 41931890		Shibuya Cerulean Tower 11F
_/_/_/ (tel)+81-3-5456-2687	26-1 Sakuragaoka-cho, Shibuya-ku
_/_/_/ (fax)+81-3-5456-2740	Tokyo, Japan
_/_/_/ http://www.gmo.jp/	150-8512
--------------------------------------------------------------------