To:
Patrick <patrick@gandi.net>
cc:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Patrick Greenwell <patrick@stealthgeeks.net>
Date:
Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:41:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:
<20010829182233.I3901@nohope.patoche.org>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Message Pushing and TCP Transport
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Patrick wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 09:11:20AM -0700, Patrick Greenwell took time to write:
> > As the number of registries and registrars scale, it might be much more
> > appropriate to have those registries PUSHing messages only to those
> > that have messages in the queue rather than having the registrars blindly
> > polling each registry on a timed interval.
>
> Everyone should remember that the client (Registrar) does not have
> explicitely to do any command whatsoever to know if a message is
> waiting since the msqQ element of the <result> item of *any* command
> tells him how many messages are waiting.
> (see §2.5 of the EPP draft)
The point is that the client has to connect to the server and check if it
does not have any explicit "normal" transactions to perform with the
registry.
Consider that EPP is envisoned as a generic provisioning protocol and
potentially could be used to provision all sorts of differing services
from any of a number of different providers. In such a case I don't think
it would be prudent to assume that there will be a continuous/frequent
rate of client-initiated transactions with every possible registry for
every specific service a registrar may use/register under.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for PUSH or for PULL. I'm arguing for the
flexibility to let the parties involved in the transaction choose between
the two.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/