RE: Message Pushing and TCP Transport

["Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
>[mailto:brunner@nic-naa.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 10:39 PM
>To: Daniel Manley
>Cc: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'; brunner@nic-naa.net
>Subject: Re: Message Pushing and TCP Transport 
>
>
>If there is one thing we do know, it is that a registry may push state to
>a registrar, without queue overhead, or hold-down timer complications and
>secondary access and store overhead. We also know, as Scott pointed out in
>the sections I quoted, that deferred queue service causes registry resource
>consumption.

The "without queue overhead" statement is true only if the pusher has no
intention of retrying in case of failed delivery.  Push or poll, the sender
needs to do something in response to an unresponsive recipient.  In case of
failed delivery, the sender can either drop and discard the message
completely, or it can queue the message for a later delivery attempt.  I
suspect the "queue for later delivery" option will be more reasonable, and
thus push/poll end up having similar queue resource requirements.

If, on the other hand, folks are comfortable with the idea of trying to push
a message once and throwing it away if it isn't delivered, then there is
indeed no queue overhead to worry about.

<Scott/>