Subject: [lemonade] Re: draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-06.txt

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 18:49:04 -0700

>  I do have a number of comments, but all of them are minor:

I also have one higher-level concern: there are a number of places in 
the document where implementations may do things one way or another 
(for example, when deciding that a session can't be recovered or that 
the selected folder has been reincarnated).  The server might send 
this response or that response.

I don't feel qualified to say whether this is a problem or not, but 
I'd like it to be considered.  If the group is comfortable with it, I 
will be happy.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get
up in the morning, and does not stop until you get to work.
                                                      --Robert Frost

_______________________________________________
lemonade mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lemonade

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:28:48 +0200

Randall Gellens writes:
> I'd like it to be considered.

This is similar to RFC 2180.

My experience with 2180 says: It's okay to offer two choices, at least 
if zero won't do. Offering more than two is begging for i14y trouble, 
particularly when it's difficult for a client author to ascertain 
whether all the possibilities have been tested.

Arnt

---

From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 13:56:23 +0200

> whether all the possibilities have been tested.

(And based on that, I conclude that the reconnect draft is mostly okay, 
but I'd love to get rid of the P* rule, so there's only one kind of 
session ID, namely opaque token.)

Arnt

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:34:05 -0700

At 1:28 PM +0200 5/25/06, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:

>  Randall Gellens writes:
>>  I don't feel qualified to say whether this is a problem or not, 
>> but I'd like it to be considered.
>
>  My experience with 2180 says: It's okay to offer two choices, at 
> least if zero won't do. Offering more than two is begging for i14y 
> trouble, particularly when it's difficult for a client author to 
> ascertain whether all the possibilities have been tested.

Sorry for not being more clear.

There are places in the reconnect draft where servers may send one of 
two or more different sequences to the client.  There isn't any 
guidance as to what considerations there are, if any, for a server 
choosing which sequence to send.  I think clients are expected to 
respond in the same way regardless of which sequence was sent, but 
I'm not sure.

One of the goals of lemonade is client simplification when this can 
be reasonably done.

So I'm asking if the reconnect draft would be easier on clients if 
there was less server optionality.  It may not make any difference, 
in which case this is a total non-issue.  But I'd like someone to 
explicitly say so.

Also, I think it would be good for the draft to mention some 
considerations as to which sequence a server generates, just to help 
readers understand what is going on, if not to offer advice to server 
implementers.
-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly-selected tag: ---------------
The Good Humor man can only be pushed so far
   --Written on the chalkboard by Bart in the
     opening of _The_Simpsons_ (TV show)

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:34:05 -0700