Re: Draft meeting minutes from the 55th IETF
Alexey Melnikov <[email protected]> Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:26:29 +0300
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sacred |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
"Nystrom, Magnus" wrote: > Well, since we do not lock the credential at the server we will have a > race condition regardless of whether we have an UploadResponse or not. It > would be possible to add a flag to the download "download for > modification" and then don't allow any other "modification downloads" > until an upload happens, but I see several other problems with this > approach (e.g. what happens if an upload does not happen?) No, I wasn't recommending this. > and I can't see > a pressing problem here since credential modifications will be quite rare > and why would a user need to do them simulatenously from more than one > client? > > To get the fresh timestamp after a successful upload clients will have to > do a new download after the modification too, yes. That is the consequence > of not having the UploadResponse message. Download *after* upload makes more sense than *before* upload, for the reason you gave. > -- Magnus > > On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > > > "Nystrom, Magnus" wrote: > > > > > -Upload response: Agreement not to make use of an UploadResponse > > > message, but retain current text requiring clients to download (to > > > ensure a fresh copy) before modifying. > > > > But this is a race condition? (unless you've meant "after modifying"). Cheers, Alexey Melnikov __________________________________________ R & D, ACI Worldwide/MessagingDirect Watford, UK Work Phone: +44 1923 81 2877 Home Page: http://orthanc.ab.ca/mel I speak for myself only, not for my employer. __________________________________________