I would agree with Dan. Given questionable reliability of time base on devices, the Database should not trust timestamps in the request, even when they are provided. Thus, it does seem like "chatter".
-vince On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Harasty, Daniel J <[email protected]>wrote: > I'd like to comment some of Sanjeev's input.**** > > ** ** > > I prefer to send independent replies on each topic, as that way a given > email thread is about a single topic (more or less).**** > > ** ** > > Sanjeev mentioned:**** > > ** ** > > From: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:31 AM**** > > [...]**** > > 2. It will be a good thing to include 'timestamp:string requirted' > paramter in all the protocol transactions **** > > [...]**** > > ** ** > > I don’t see the purpose in this. I don’t see how the operation of the > Database – or the way it will respond to any given request – is dependent > on it knowing what time the Device thinks it is. (Or vice versa.)**** > > ** ** > > Unless someone can point out a use case for this field, I consider it > unneeded “chatter” in the protocol. That said, the Database or Device can > easily ignore it, so I won’t push back if others believe this field is > generally useful.**** > > ** ** > > Dan**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > paws mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws > > -- -vince
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
