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