[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


To: "'Liu, Hong'" <Hong.Liu@neustar.biz>, "'ietf-provreg@cafax.se'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:57:34 -0400
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: RE: Response Code 2501

> I am looking for a solution to problem of server terminating session
> management. I will be happy if you or someone else can give me an
> alternative solution.

I think the way that ftp servers deal with this is an excellent example; see
section 4.1.3.2 of RFC 1132.  The ftp control connection can be closed by
the server after a period of client inactivity.  There's no
message/response/error code sent to the client because the server only
responds to commands, just as in EPP today.  If/when the client next tries
to do something (if ever), it finds that the connection has been closed and
the situation is reported to the user.

BTW, the mapping of a session to the concept of a connection to a server is
being addressed in the next edition of the documents.  I'm not saying that
we get tied to connection-oriented transports like TCP in the core document,
but as part of the whole stateful vs. stateless issue Patrik wanted to see a
clearer mapping between the session and connection concepts.  Transport
documents are going to have to be specific about how sessions are mapped to
client-server connections.

-Scott-

Home | Date list | Subject list