To:
"Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>
Date:
Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:32:18 +0900
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<5E42C1C85C5D064A947CF92FADE6D82E084075@STNTEXCH1>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations
--On 2002-07-18 22.35 -0400 "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz> wrote:
> I guess we had different definition for "delayed execution". Please refer
> to my response to Scott's email. In short, pending operation does not
> call for delayed response. In fact, it calls for additional information
> once the pending operation is completed.
This is exactly what I mean by "delayed execution".
I.e.:
(1) Client send a command to server
(2) Server respond that it has received command
(3) Server execute the command
(4) Client fetches the result code
This is what I urge this wg to _not_ do.
If you really need asynchronous execution like this (i.e. even delayed
execution like this), you have to (a) convince the IESG that is needed and
(b) redesign the protocol quite extensively, because what you want to do is
not possible with what you have on the table today.
paf