Re: Response Code 2501

["Ram Mohan" <rmohan@afilias.info>]

Liu, Scott:
From a purist's (and standards-based) perspective, in a client-server model,
a server-initiated message is not appropriate.

Unsolicited server "responses" (it's not really a response if it's server
initiated, is it) should not be in the draft.

-ram

----- Original Message -----
From: "Liu, Hong" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>
To: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: Response Code 2501


> Scott,
>
> I would prefer to keep this response code as an option for implementation.
> The command is useful for the server to notify the client that it is
closing
> down the idle connection and this is the last message from the server.
>
> While I understand that the normal operating mode for EPP is
> client-initiated command/response, this is a special case where the server
> initiates the action due to non-activity by a client. Otherwise, the
client
> will be left without any clue why the connection is gone.
>
> --Hong
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:shollenbeck@verisign.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:52 AM
> To: 'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'
> Subject: Response Code 2501
>
>
> While working through the new state diagram to be added to the EPP core
> document, I had to ponder idle timeouts and they're addressed.  Right now
> there's an error code defined that allows a server to notify a client of a
> timeout situation:
>
> 2501 "Timeout; server ending session"
>
> Is this error code really needed, though?  Servers aren't supposed to send
a
> response to a client without having first received a command, so if a
client
> dies or creates a session that's been alive for "a long time" the server
> shouldn't be sending this as an unsolicited response.  It seems to make
more
> sense in this case for the server to just close the connection, and if the
> client tries to write something it'll find the connection closed.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> FWIW this and the TCP header thing are the last two things I need to
address
> before being able to release the updated documents.
>
> -Scott-
>