Re: draft-ietf-ldapext-ldap-c-api-03 & timeout

[fan jiao <fjiao@cisco.com>]

I agree the simple timeout has less
complexity to manage. But it doesn't
work well in a congested production
network. On the other hand, the
exponential timeout is being widely used
in SNMP world; it has been proven to
increase odds to retry/re-connect to
network devices.

Chuck Boatwright wrote:

> Ed Reed wrote:
> >
> > Such higher level APIs are candidates for development in the
> > Directory Interoperability Forum SDK group, would you agree?
> >
> > Ed
> >
>
> Maybe so, but I haven't seen a draft for what services this SDK would
> provide.  Has a list of possible features been posted?  -- did I miss
> it?
>
> The reason for keeping the timeout mechanism simple, is to eliminate
> some of the nasty complexities of managing the timeout.  A similar
> argument can be made for connection pooling.  I am in favor of keeping
> the timeout mechanism simple, as the draft specifies, though that
> doesn't mean that my opinion can't be swayed.
>
> -ch
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Netscape isn't responsible for content, grammar or spelling