ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: what to say on timeout?

2004-01-07 23:41:57


On 1/7/2004 12:05 PM, Hector Santos wrote:

hmmmmm, lets see, you send an unsolicited 421 notification, delay the
hangup for 1 minute to see if the client will do a graceful exit
(quit)?   Is that what we looking for here?   Lets assume Current
software will "wake up", what happens next depends on whether it purses
the notification or not.  If not,  the client will exit on its own.

If someone wants a signal for "about to hangup" with a pause in case the
client resumes, then that would best be served with a 32x code. While that
may be useful, it would also be a fairly significant expansion, and I
don't think that's reasonable for the scope of this discussion.
Conversely, a statement that unilateral disconnects should be preceded
with a 421 is a clarification to existing functionality I think.

I'm just trying to see where  the "idea" would apply.  Waiting on a
QUIT to complete a transaction?

421 means that the server is going away, so anything more from the client
would have to be handled with a new session.

I am just saying that we shouldn't be expecting clients to be
"kept-alive." with "wake-up warnings."  as this will require a
completely new framework.

I don't think that's an appropriate objective here either.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>