Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] 3730 <poll> Text Change Proposal

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:23:04 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edward Lewis [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 4:16 PM
> To: Hollenbeck, Scott
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] 3730 <poll> Text Change Proposal
> 

[snip]

> That's why I suggest a "SHOULD/MUST" send to others involved, "MAY" 
> to the requestor.  (And that clients MUST be able to deal with the 
> message appropriately.)

OK, so how about this:

OLD (section 2.9.2.3):
Service messages MUST be created for all clients affected by an action
on an object.  For example, <transfer> actions MUST be reported to both
the client that requests an object transfer and the client that has the
authority to approve or reject the transfer request.

NEW:
Service messages SHOULD be created for passive clients affected by an
action on an object.  Service messages MAY also be created for active
clients that request an action on an object, though such messages MUST
NOT replace the normal protocol response to the request.  For example,
<transfer> actions SHOULD be reported to the client that has the
authority to approve or reject a transfer request.  Other methods of
server-client action notification, such as offline reporting, are also
possible and are beyond the scope of this specification.

-Scott-

---

From: James Gould <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:01:05 -0400

Scott,

It looks good to me.

-- 

JG 

James F. Gould
VeriSign Naming and Directory Services
[email-masked]

This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it
is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use,
distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete
the original transmission

> From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:23:04 -0400
> To: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] 3730 <poll> Text Change Proposal
>

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:22:16 -0400

> action on an object.  Service messages MAY also be created for active

The SHOULD here makes me slightly nervous, but I don't have any
principled objection.  I still think the mechanism is pretty
inflexible, but this SHOULD gives me enough room, I think, to move if
I have to.

The third paragraph of the existing 2.9.2.3 also has this:

---cut here---
Servers MAY implement other mechanisms to dequeue and deliver
messages if queue maintenance needs exceed server resource
consumption limits.
---cut here---

We could take the conditional clause away, to yield, "Servers
MAY implement other mechanisms to dequeue and deliver messages."
That would again be consistent with the old language, and coupled
with the changes Scott has suggested, would lead to a looser
understanding of what the poll mechanism requires.

A

----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
                                        +1 416 646 3304 x4110