On Mar 21, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
Ben wrote:
There's a few ways to handle that:
1) Treat rate-control as an informative reference, and say you're doing
something mostly like rate control, but not quite identical. That would
require quite a bit more normative language to describe what you're actually
doing.
2) Make this draft update rate-control to allow for empty bodies when you
don't have location info yet. Put some tightly constrained language around
it. so that this doesn't become a _general_ udpate.
3) Since rate-control has, to my knowledge, not been pubreq'd yet, try to
get the authors to modify the language to allow for empty bodies for this
use case.
I personally think 3 is the best path forward, as I think the empty notify
is generally useful for rate-control, and implementor are likely to do it
anyway.
I was not under the impression from reading rate-control that that document
was modifying 3265 to prevent notifiers from sending an empty notify. But,
your suggestion is a reasonable one. Reading the rate-control text you
quoted earlier in the thread could lead to the impression that this is the
case. I've added the rate control authors to the thread.
I don't think it modifies 3265 in general, but it does seem to normatively
prevent empty NOTIFY requests as a result of a max-interval expiration.
--Martin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf