Re: Multiple response modes

[Peter Deutsch <[e-mail]>]

[ You 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![e-mail]>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------