ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Proposal for Adjusted DATA Timeout

2008-05-27 09:45:51

On Tue, 27 May 2008, Paul Smith wrote:
Tony Finch wrote:

http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/~fanf2/hermes/doc/qsmtp/draft-fanf-smtp-rfc1845bis.html

OK. Does anyone support that though?

Not as far as I know :-)

It does seem overly complicated. I'd be reluctant to put the effort in to
support that (unless it became very widely supported) For instance, I'd have
thought that having to resume partial DATA sessions is pretty much unnecessary
now.

Servers don't have to implement suport for partial data retransmission.

Part of the motivation behind the draft was mobile users who suffer from
mobility-related dropouts, in which situation partial data retransmission
would be helpful.

I suppose it might be reasonable to allow clients to use TRANSOFF=0
instead of echoing the server's offset, which would make partial
retransmission optional for clients too.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at>  http://dotat.at/
SOUTH UTSIRE: EASTERLY 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY 6. SLIGHT OR MODERATE. FAIR. GOOD.

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