Subject: RE: Response Code 2501

From: "Liu, Hong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:37:08 -0400

Scott,

I would prefer to keep this response code as an option for implementation.
The command is useful for the server to notify the client that it is closing
down the idle connection and this is the last message from the server.

While I understand that the normal operating mode for EPP is
client-initiated command/response, this is a special case where the server
initiates the action due to non-activity by a client. Otherwise, the client
will be left without any clue why the connection is gone.

--Hong

-----Original Message-----
From: Hollenbeck, Scott [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:52 AM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: Response Code 2501

While working through the new state diagram to be added to the EPP core
document, I had to ponder idle timeouts and they're addressed.  Right now
there's an error code defined that allows a server to notify a client of a
timeout situation:

2501 "Timeout; server ending session"

Is this error code really needed, though?  Servers aren't supposed to send a
response to a client without having first received a command, so if a client
dies or creates a session that's been alive for "a long time" the server
shouldn't be sending this as an unsolicited response.  It seems to make more
sense in this case for the server to just close the connection, and if the
client tries to write something it'll find the connection closed.

Thoughts?

FWIW this and the TCP header thing are the last two things I need to address
before being able to release the updated documents.

-Scott-

---

From: "Ram Mohan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:11:18 -0400

Liu, Scott:
From a purist's (and standards-based) perspective, in a client-server model,
a server-initiated message is not appropriate.

Unsolicited server "responses" (it's not really a response if it's server
initiated, is it) should not be in the draft.

-ram