To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>, "'Liu, Hong'" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se
From:
Edward Lewis <edlewis@arin.net>
Date:
Tue, 6 Aug 2002 09:09:31 -0400
In-Reply-To:
<3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60336FD12@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: Login Failure and Sessions
For what it matters, speaking as a state machinist and not as the chair:
|
| /-------------------\
| | |
v v |
+-------+ |
| login |--fail < N tries--/
+-------+
| |
success fail
| >= N tries
| \
| ------------------>
v
This is roughly how I would draw option 2 - not that I am suggesting
that option 2 is the preferred solution. This is a shorthand,
strictly speaking you shouldn't have state (the value of N) on the
arcs. But I think this would fly in a protocol specification.
At 3:41 PM -0400 8/5/02, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>> I understand your concerns, but the retrial number N is really a
>> configuration parameter. It is not unusual to leave this type
>> of parameters
>> for run-time configuration, take the windowing protocol as an
>> example. The
>> size of the window is not fixed in the spec.
>
>You didn't address the problem I presented: the need to craft a
>deterministic state diagram. If what you're saying, though, is that you
>prefer option 2 (blast the connection after N failures) with the value of N
>(0 <= N <= inf) to be determined by the server operator, I can work with
>that. That's at least easier to describe formally than "it's a policy
>issue". ;-)
>
>-Scott-
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis +1-703-227-9854
ARIN Research Engineer