Subject: RE: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations

From: "Liu, Hong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:35:34 -0400

Patrik,

I guess we had different definition for "delayed execution". Please refer to
my response to Scott's email. In short, pending operation does not call for
delayed response. In fact, it calls for additional information once the
pending operation is completed.

So the correct use of <status> command, under the proposed change, is to
find out whether the previous client command has been successfully processed
by the server. This does not mean that the operation requested in the
command has been completed by the server. What I need is a notification
mechanism in EPP for the latter.

--Hong

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 7:48 PM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott; Liu, Hong; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Proposed Document Changes - Pending Operations

--On 2002-07-18 19.25 -0400 "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "pending operation".  Given
> that all commands are supposed to receive a response immediately after
> being received and processed, there should never be a situation where a
> command is sent and it takes "a long time" before the server sends back a
> response, so I hope that's not what you're asking about.

I explicitly want to know whether this wg _really_ want to have what I
would call "delayed execution" or not. I heard from Scott and the wg chairs
when we had lunch that the wg has not wanted delayed execution.

I am even prepared saying that I don't see any need for either delayed
execution or pipelining in the protocol. It makes the protocol MUCH more
difficult. The current protocol do not handle either delayed execution or
pipelining, so if you want either of these things, you really have to go
back to the drawing board.

Scott and wg chairs told me the wg have not expressed interest in those
"features", and that the wording which is used today is possibly there
because of misunderstanding whether words are needed in the core protocol
or the protocol binding. This I think is much better if the changes Scott
propose are applied.

  paf

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 14:32:18 +0900

--On 2002-07-18 22.35 -0400 "Liu, Hong" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I guess we had different definition for "delayed execution". Please refer
> to my response to Scott's email. In short, pending operation does not
> call for delayed response. In fact, it calls for additional information
> once the pending operation is completed.

This is exactly what I mean by "delayed execution".

I.e.:

(1) Client send a command to server
(2) Server respond that it has received command
(3) Server execute the command
(4) Client fetches the result code

This is what I urge this wg to _not_ do.

If you really need asynchronous execution like this (i.e. even delayed
execution like this), you have to (a) convince the IESG that is needed and
(b) redesign the protocol quite extensively, because what you want to do is
not possible with what you have on the table today.

    paf