[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: LCUP issue: What is "a while"?

To: "'Jim Sermersheim'" <jimse@xxxxxxxxxx>, ietf-ldup@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: LCUP issue: What is "a while"?
From: "Liben, Michael (GTS)" <mliben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 09:26:32 -0400
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-ldup.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-ldup-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Sender: owner-ietf-ldup@xxxxxxxxxxxx

The "MUST wait for a while" would be consistent with most other network algorithms. If it doesn't wait, it may cause unintentional denial of service attacks by swamping the server with connection
requests. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Sermersheim [mailto:jimse@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 12:53 AM
To: ietf-ldup@xxxxxxx; Jim Sermersheim
Subject: LCUP issue: What is "a while"?

Section 4.8 states "it MUST wait for a while before attempting another
synchronization session with the server. "

If we're going to use an imperative like MUST, we ought to not use
vague language like "a while". I suggest we drop the MUST anyway--is
there an interoperability issue here?

Jim

Prev by Date: RE: LCUP Issue: UUID
Next by Date: RE: LCUP: rename of baseObject (was something else)
Previous by thread: LCUP issue: What is "a while"?
Next by thread: RE: LCUP issue: What is "a while"?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread