RE: LCUP issue: What is "a while"?
"Kurt D. Zeilenga" <[email protected]> Wed, 04 Sep 2002 14:01:28 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldup |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
At 06:26 AM 2002-09-04, Liben, Michael (GTS) wrote: >The "MUST wait for a while" would be consistent with most other network algorithms. If it doesn't wait, it may cause unintentional denial of service attacks by swamping the server with connection requests. Jim's comment was that the phrase "MUST wait a while" is a meaningless mandatory requirement. A nanosecond can be viewed as a long while in some contexts, a century can be viewed as a short while in some contexts. While the document could attempt to define what an appropriate while is in this context, the document likely would be better off not stating this as mandatory requirement. Kurt >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Sermersheim [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 12:53 AM >To: [email protected]; Jim Sermersheim >Subject: LCUP issue: What is "a while"? > > >Section 4.8 states "it MUST wait for a while before attempting another >synchronization session with the server. " > >If we're going to use an imperative like MUST, we ought to not use >vague language like "a while". I suggest we drop the MUST anyway--is >there an interoperability issue here? > >Jim