Re: Multiple response modes
Rickard Schoultz <schoultz@sunet.se> Mon, 27 December 1993 15:41 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25034; 27 Dec 93 10:41 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25028; 27 Dec 93 10:41 EST
Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07805; 27 Dec 93 10:41 EST
Received: by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (4.1/UCD2.05) id AA22763; Mon, 27 Dec 93 07:20:04 PST
X-Orig-Sender: ietf-wnils-request@ucdavis.edu
Received: from sunic.sunet.se by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (4.1/UCD2.05) id AA22621; Mon, 27 Dec 93 07:14:22 PST
Received: from localhost.sunet.se by sunic.sunet.se (8.6.4/2.03) id QAA10879; Mon, 27 Dec 1993 16:16:44 +0100
Message-Id: <199312271516.QAA10879@sunic.sunet.se>
To: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>
Cc: ietf-wnils@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: Multiple response modes
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 01 Dec 93 10:03:12 -0500. <9312011503.AA09742@expresso.bunyip.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 16:16:43 +0100
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Rickard Schoultz <schoultz@sunet.se>
I answered the letter attached below before, but I found another reason why we need to make the "Transfer Complete" required: Suppose you are doing a query with a HOLD constraint, which would give you the ability to put another query or issue another command. Without a transfer complete code, the client cannot know when the server reply ends (not even if we would keep the record count, since the reply may be a mix of response modes (see the attached letter)). -Rickard [Peter wrote:] > [ Rickard wrote: ] >> A reply send from a whois++ server has a layout like: >> >> # response-mode >> data >> # END >> >> The whois++ document mentions a `Pointer' response mode, allowing the >> server to point to another whois++ server (records on another server). >> The index document also defines a `Servers-To-Ask' reply, which allows a >> server tell the client to pass the query to another server. > Yes, this was agreed to but not yet put into the document. >> It would be very useful if the server could respond with a mix of >> response modes. One problem with that is that `# END' is defined as the >> end of the response [of the FORMAT response MODE], so this means that we >> have to use something else to mark the end of the whole response; >> Preferably a system response since that is what we are doing. >> >> A server could in this model yield: >> >> # FULL >> # USER foo123 >> Name:Grkl Mnpgh >> # END >> # POINTER >> <some yet-to-be-defined structure> >> # END >> % 226 Transfer complete. >> >> Would that be acceptable? > Perfectly acceptable to me. If nobody else objects we can > consider it done. Do we want to _require_ the "Transfer > complete", or allow a closed connection to signal this? > I'm thinking of the problem SMTP has without a proper > acknowledged disconnect mechanism, but in that case a lost > ack causes retransmits of data (and at times a flood of > duplicate messages). Would this be a problem for us? > - peterd > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > "The Internet destroys the Greek tragedy of time and space..." > - Daniel Pimienta <pimienta!daniel@redid.org.do> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Multiple response modes Rickard Schoultz
- Re: Multiple response modes Peter Deutsch
- Re: Multiple response modes Rickard Schoultz
- Re: Multiple response modes Rickard Schoultz