On Mar 21, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote: > Ben wrote: >> There's a few ways to handle that: >> >> 1) Treat rate-control as an informative reference, and say you're doing something mostly like rate control, but not quite identical. That would require quite a bit more normative language to describe what you're actually doing. >> >> 2) Make this draft update rate-control to allow for empty bodies when you don't have location info yet. Put some tightly constrained language around it. so that this doesn't become a _general_ udpate. >> >> 3) Since rate-control has, to my knowledge, not been pubreq'd yet, try to get the authors to modify the language to allow for empty bodies for this use case. >> >> I personally think 3 is the best path forward, as I think the empty notify is generally useful for rate-control, and implementor are likely to do it anyway. > > I was not under the impression from reading rate-control that that document was modifying 3265 to prevent notifiers from sending an empty notify. But, your suggestion is a reasonable one. Reading the rate-control text you quoted earlier in the thread could lead to the impression that this is the case. I've added the rate control authors to the thread. > I don't think it modifies 3265 in general, but it does seem to normatively prevent empty NOTIFY requests as a result of a max-interval expiration. > --Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf