On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Ray Bellis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Notwithstanding the ongoing Call for Adoption, we've just posted a > further update to this draft which addresses some of the comments > already received, and also removes the explicit "Start Session" TLV in > favour of just using the "Idle Timeout" TLV to request a "long-lived > session". > > Ray > > Just my thoughts - what seemed 'normal' 10 years ago seems terribly slow now, so I hate to specify what is "short" or "long" times in a long-lived document. 2. Terminology - "session" says: "The connection between client and server is persistent and relatively long-lived (i.e. minutes or hours, rather than seconds)." I am thinking that even 'seconds' could be long-lived. Would it be better to say that a session could be "long-lived" in terms of "time or number of packets or round trips" ? 4.2.1. Idle Timeout "It is not required that the Idle Timeout TLV be used in every session. While many Session Signaling operations (such as DNS Push Notifications [I-D.ietf-dnssd-push]) will be used in conjunction with a long-lived connection, this is not required, and in some cases the default 30-second timeout may be perfectly appropriate." I would be interested in the list discussing whether there should be a default time or not. Would it make sense to leave the default timeout up to the server, and always send an Idle Timeout request if a 'long-lived' session is desired? I might be wrong, but am curious what others think. -- Bob Harold
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
