To:
"'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>
Date:
Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:45:48 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
EPP PUSH: Session Setup Semantics
Hi, all, Now that we are moving towards developing a transport neutral EPP PUSH capability, I would like to ping the list on some design choices at hand. The first issue comes to mind is what we mean by setting up a session that the server can push data to the client. To set the context, I reiterate the EPP session setup procedure in my previous email. I will use the terms "server" and "client" as defined in the base EPP. 1. Upon successful connection establishment, the server sends a <greeting> message to the client, advertising its intent to support EPP PUSH in the this EPP session. This is done by supplying the EPP PUSH URI as an <extURI> value within the <svcExtension> field. 2. The client responds with a <login> command. The client includes the EPP PUSH URI as an <extURI> value within the <svcExtension> field if and only if it agrees to support EPP PUSH in this session. 3. The server responds to the <login> command. If the client logins successfully, the EPP session is established AND both the server and the client are in sync about whether this session can be used for server-pushed data or not. Here is the potential ambiguity I would like to resolve. Suppose both the server and the client agree on supporting EPP PUSH in this session, there are two possible semantics: a. Push-only semantics. The session can only be used for server-pushed messages. The client cannot use <poll> in this session to retrieve messages from the server. b. Mixed semantics. Both server-push and client-poll are allowed. In both cases, I think it is reasonable to assume that other EPP commands and responses are allowed. Which semantics should we pick, (a) or (b)? Is this a registry policy issue or a standardization issue? Cheers, --Hong