>
This proposal is entirely consistent with the specification
The proposal does not address the lack of ordering. The proposal does not address stateless server design.
> If you want to revisit that issue…
NO! I DO NOT WANT TO REVISIT THAT ISSUE. Is that clear to you?
I am asking the group, if anyone has an issue with the proposal, given the limitations that I have identified. Clearly, Tim, you do not have an issue. Thank you for responding. Does anyone else have a problem with this?
Again. Note, Everybody. I am not proposing any changes yet. I am just trying to learn if anyone else has an issue with this.
John
From: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:kmip@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Tim Hudson
Sent: Friday, 16 May 2014 6:18 AM
To: kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [kmip] Groups - Locate with Offset uploaded
On 16/05/2014 6:05 AM, John Leiseboer wrote:
>
If you are suggesting that the order of objects returned from Locate should be made to be required to be deterministic then you should perhaps raise that as a separate proposal.
No. I am not suggesting this at all, as this would not solve the issue. Given the discussion at the last face to face I’m reluctant to raise much at all. I just wanted to point out, and you have confirmed, that
the proposed solution is not consistent with the specification, and that it is not robust to implementation differences (or in other words, it relies on server implementations being “sensible”, where sensible does not mean designed in accordance with the specification).
Actually no John - I'm pointing out that the item you are raising in the context of this issue is an item we have as a technical committee previously determined did not need to be set as a requirement. If you want to revisit that issue then you should raise
the base issue independent of the proposal that updates a feature.
This proposal is entirely consistent with the specification - it continues to not mandate (or preclude) a specific order.
The specification does not mandate a particular design for a server (that is a non-goal) - it specifies an interoperability protocol - server design is left to the implementers of each server.
Tim.