To:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Cc:
ed.lewis@Neustar.biz
From:
Edward Lewis <Ed.Lewis@Neustar.biz>
Date:
Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:02:07 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<20050816180403.GT4918@libertyrms.info>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: [ietf-provreg] 3730 <poll> Text Change Proposal
At 14:04 -0400 8/16/05, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 01:27:56PM -0400, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote: >> NEW: >> Service messages can be created for all clients affected by an action on >> an object that did not directly execute the action. For example, >> <transfer> actions can be reported to the client that has the authority >> to approve or reject a transfer request. Other methods of server-client >> action notification, such as offline reporting, are also possible and >> are beyond the scope of this specification. > >I like this, myself. Do we want to make the "can"s in there SHOULDs >instead? (I don't, really, but this is a pretty dramatic weakening >from the MUST we had before. Looking at the archives, there seem to >have been some people arguing for a much more important poll queue.) The change confuses me. Instead of relaxing from MUST to SHOULD, the change eliminates any "standards" words. The code base we have currently conforms to the "OLD" spec. We don't have a problem with it, hence we are reluctant to want to see the spec changed (in a way that is "not backwards compatible"). Not so much because we are against change but because we'd like to avoid having to redistribute software (or require new software be written by clients that contact us). It might be that the service message requirement as in "OLD" is suboptimal because it requires a service message go back to the initiator. But we'd rather keep this practice and just recognize (and then drop) the unnecessary message than have to replace software. Keeping in mind that the current way of passing messages is only sub-optimal, not unworkable. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding on my part of what problem the extraneous message causes. Still, I would have thought the new text would have been: Service messages MUST be created for all clients affected by an action on an object that did not directly execute the action, and MAY be created for others affected (including the initiator). For example, ... -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.