RE: [kmip] Groups - Locate with Offset uploaded

> It seems that any server vendor that actually implemented the locate offset would ensure an order…

Implementing ordering in a server does not solve the problem. The issue comes about from the stateless nature of the protocol. Anything can happen between an individual’s client requests to a server. The fact that anything can happen means that iterating through recomputed lists of attributes for each “Locate-next-chunk” request is not guaranteed to work as the client needs. The proposal does not present a solution that works properly. To be blunt, the proposal is flawed, and in my opinion should be rejected.

There are ways of fixing this without requiring order, or server state. It is a very well-known problem that has been solved many times in networking protocols. I am willing to work with others on presenting an alternative proposal, but only if the group wants to consider it.

John

From: Mark Joseph [mailto:mark@p6r.com]
Sent: Friday, 16 May 2014 6:48 AM
To: John Leiseboer; Tim Hudson; kmip@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [kmip] Groups - Locate with Offset uploaded

It seems that any server vendor that actually implemented the locate offset would ensure an order otherwise the feature makes no sense for that vendor to provide it.

Mark Joseph, PhD

President

P6R, Inc

408-205-0361

www.p6r.com

-------- Original message --------

From: John Leiseboer

Date:05/15/2014 1:29 PM (GMT-08:00)

To: Tim Hudson ,kmip@lists.oasis-open.org

Subject: RE: [kmip] Groups - Locate with Offset uploaded

> 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.

kmip message