Dawn: Yes, pipelining is another good reason to send the response in the update stream control service.
This, and the other reasons I indicate in a different thread [1] makes me prefer option 2. [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg03687.html Cheers, On 06/11/2018 03:47 AM, Dawn Chan wrote: > Hi Vijay, > > Thanks for the reply, it is a good point that the result should also be sent > in the update stream service. > > Besides, there is another point that the result should also be sent in the > update stream service. If the server process requests asynchronously, when it > receives the request from the client and insert it in its queue, it will > first send a response back to the client; and after the server successfully > processed the request, it will send a reply via the update stream service. > This case requires the server to indicate the state of the “remove” operation > in the reply. A simple attribute “state” with type JSON boolean in the > UpdateStream ControlEvent can solve the concern. If "state" is false, the > operation fails; if "state" is true, the operation succeeds. > > object { > [String control-uri;] > [Boolean state;] > [String remove<1..*>;] > } UpdateStreamControlEvent; > > This is my idea for option 2. > > Wish to hear opinions from others in the group. > > Best Wishes, > Dawn > > ________________________________________ > From: alto <[email protected]> on behalf of Y. Richard Yang > <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2018 3:57:14 AM > To: Gurbani, Vijay (Nokia - US) > Cc: IETF ALTO > Subject: Re: [alto] Need to move SSE to WGLC, but ... > > Dear Vijay, Jan, > > Thank you so much. It is a wonderful idea to check the WG for additional > comments on the mentioned issues. The authors will address suggestions, if > any, and then move the document forward. > > Thanks! > Richard > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 11:04 AM Vijay K. Gurbani > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Folks: Jan and I would like to move SSE [1] to WGLC. > > Looking at the mailing list, we note that the authors are asking input > from the WG on an issue in SSE [2]. > > We would kindly request the WG to spend some time thinking about the > question being asked in [2] and to chime in with some thoughts. > > Assuming that there is no response by next week on this, the authors can > proceed with their default position on this, for which they have an > articulated reason in [2]. > > Jan and I will follow up next week and if there has not been any further > list discussion on this, we will move the work ahead to WGLC. > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-incr-update-sse/ > [2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg03684.html > > Thanks, > > - vijay > -- > Vijay K. Gurbani / [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Network Data Science, Nokia Networks > Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > > > -- > -- > ===================================== > | Y. Richard Yang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> | > | Professor of Computer Science | > | http://www.cs.yale.edu/~yry/ | > ===================================== > - vijay -- Vijay K. Gurbani / [email protected] Network Data Science, Nokia Networks Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
