To:
"Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>
cc:
"'Hollenbeck, Scott'" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:07:54 -0500
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:03:49 CST." <23309E398D84D5119D0F00306E07513901181AFB@dc02.npac.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Pending Update
> Another issue that arises in the context of asynchrony is the notification > mechansim ... push vs poll. For some reason, and we are indifferent to which, the state of a datum in the registrar-registry "shared data" is inconsistent, and the instance of the datum in the registry is later than the instance of the datum in the (sponsoring) registrar, and we believe that time goes forward most of the time. > Is this an implementation issue or an EPP issue? I would like to hear from > you and others on the list. Thanks! push vs poll. Covered in _extensive_ detail in this list. > ... multiple asynchronous update operations on the same object. How does this condition non-trivially arise? Is the registry providing synchronization services for a registrar that is making multiple writes against an object it sponsors, or is this some form of "dualing registrars" and non-sponsored objects? Please clarify. Eric