[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CAP: autologout
George Babics wrote:
And I have no problem with that.
Looking at the archive, it was agreed to allow the server to ignore
NOOP and still drop the connection.
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.
What you are suggesting is to return an error rather than simply
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 |