To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
cc:
"'Daniel Manley'" <dmanley@tucows.com>, <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
Thomas Corte <Thomas.Corte@knipp.de>
Date:
Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:45:56 +0200 (MESZ)
In-Reply-To:
<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD6C5FA64@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Command Recovery
Hello, On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: > 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. I think the server should not have to care about the uniqueness of client transaction ids; however, it should keep different 'transaction id namespaces' for all clients. If a client wants to benefit from the status command, it has to keep his own transaction ids unique, which is a simple task. The server may then simply report an error if it detects ambiguous transaction ids among a client's commands. Regards, _____________________________________________________________________ | | | knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH ------- Technologiepark Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9 D-44227 Dortmund Dipl.-Inform. Thomas Corte Fon: +49-231-9703-0 Thomas.Corte@knipp.de Fax: +49-231-9703-200