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