To:
"'Daniel Manley'" <dmanley@tucows.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:53:35 -0400
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Command Recovery
>-----Original Message----- >From: Daniel Manley [mailto:dmanley@tucows.com] >Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:31 AM >To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se >Subject: Re: Command Recovery >I guess option 1 seems like the most versatile and useful, so my >preference is with 1. Could client trids still be optional if you went >ahead with number 1? Does it even make sense to keep them optional in >that case? I think they can still be optional, you just lose the ability to check up on one if it hasn't been provided. I think a bigger question involves uniqueness: does the server have to start enforcing unique TRIDs for each client? Across all clients? As things are written right now, the clTRIDs are basically just passed-through data that the client can use to synchronize commands and responses, and the server logs them as part of the larger transaction ID. If the server doesn't enforce uniqueness you can get multiple hits when trying to determine status, which may not be helpful. If the server does enforce uniqueness, it becomes a bit more complex. <Scott/>