Re: CAP: autologout

[John Stracke <francis@xxxxxxxx>]

George Babics wrote:

> Looking at the archive, it was agreed to allow the server to ignore
> NOOP and still drop the connection.
And I have no problem with that.

> What you are suggesting is to return an error rather than simply
> ignore
> NOOP.
Sure.  I mean, if the server isn't honoring the request, it should say 
so; it shouldn't just send a success code--that would be lying.

On the other hand, a CUA that gets an error code in response to NOOP 
might then start doing useless things to keep the connection alive, and 
those will cost more server resources.  So maybe it's best if the server 
can keep the CUA in the dark.

--
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist |================================================|
|eCal Corp.      |For the life of me, I've never understood why   |
|francis@xxxxxxxx|people dismiss the importance of "semantics" in |
|                |communication. After all, if semantics had no   |
|                |purpleness, you'd slitheringly go bold at by-sit|
|                |it I'm climbing. -- Tangwystyl                  |
\=================================================================/