Hi Daniel, I would suggest the field be left there as it can be used by the database for security and ensuring devices adhere to frequency requirements of querying the database.
Using the timestamp field, I would assume the database can easily detect if a device is attempting a flooding attack. Kind Regards, Glenn From: Harasty, Daniel J [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 4:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [paws] including a timestamp in every message 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]<mailto:[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
