Subject: Re: Core draft last call update.

From: Darren Moffat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 13:44:10 -0800 (PST)

>> Maybe I'm missing something,  but I can't see the need to disconnect in 
this
>> case,  as opposed to simply discarding these messages.  
>
>I don't think think it's that simple.  Have you actually prototyped
>this?  
>
>Many of these message types are ones for which the client expects a
>response -- simply discarding such requests on the server will confuse
>and/or hang clients which were expecting responses.

In addition to that what is the point of the client sending the packets
if they are likely to be discarded anyway ?  This makes the client
more complex.

--
Darren J Moffat

---

From: Derek Fawcus <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 22:51:27 +0000

> if they are likely to be discarded anyway ?  This makes the client

But the point is that they're not likely to be discarded.

Assume that your log in attempt will be sucessful,  in that case you
can send the next packets (those which form the upper layer exchange)
without waiting for a RTT.

Granted,  if for some reason the log in failed,  you have to cope
with that failure,  and that case is more complex.  But it is entirely
the choice of the client if it will trigger and hence have to deal
with this complexity.

I'm just after not precluding a client from making that choice if it
can get some advantage from dealing with the extra complexity.

DF