LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


ZNG@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  June 2002

ZNG June 2002

Subject:

Re: Betr.: SessionID Summary

From:

"LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:57:22 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (84 lines)

Having the server determine when to return a sessionID is fine by me.  If
the client isn't interested in sessions, then it can ignore that
information.  Pica can issue a sessionID after authentication and control
the number of users that way or they can provide a separate service to get
the sessionID.  Once we've specified one way to get a sessionID
(automatically from the server) and explained how it is used in subsequent
requests, then other ways to get sessionIDs become someone elses problem.

I agree that sessionIDs and resultSetNames are independent.  The use of
sessionIDs is not mandatory.  The use of resultSetNames is.

Ralph



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theo van Veen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 4:09 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Betr.: SessionID Summary
>
>
> Instead of bidding (I suppose it is requesting for it) for a
> sessionid, I prefer the server just sends it when it requires
> one. When the client requested it, it will either get one or
> not, and when it did not request one, the server will
> probably send it unsollicited, so what is the benefit of
> requesting it?
> The way the client gets it first sessionid will depend on the
> servers requierements: it may require authentication first or
> it will just provide one (just for its onw benefit). In case
> of authentication (but possibly also in the other case) the
> sessionid will have an encrypted content that is inderstood
> by both the server and the mechanisme that provided it, but
> not by the client. The client will only echo it back to the
> server without any interpretation.
>
> In response to Ray. I prefer sessionid's and resultsetid's to
> be independent of each other, but the server is of course
> free to make the sessionid part of the resultsetid.
>
> Theo
>
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 18-06-02 17:29 >>>
> Here's where I think we are:
>
> Sessions have been deemed valuable.  I dislike the security
> arguments, but
> am persuaded by Pica's requirement to throttle the number of
> active users.
> Pica's proposal was for a ticket from another service to be
> used.  I don't
> like that, because the use of the ticket will be mandatory
> (at least at
> Pica) and will need to be documented as part of SRW for SRW
> clients to be
> able to talk to Pica.  That causes me to want the session
> mechanism to be
> built into SRW.  Since Pica intends to be an SRU implementor
> (speak up Rob
> or Janifer if I've mispoken!) then the session mechanism
> can't reside in
> SOAP headers.  It must either be in the SRW/SRU message or in cookies.
> Personally, I like the cookie solution, but doubt that we can
> require their
> use at all the places where sessions are needed.  So, the
> client bids for a
> sessionID in a request and gets one (probably with a TTL
> (Time To Live)
> value like resultSetID's).  The sessionID will be used in subsequent
> responses.  (It would be polite if the server ignored the bid
> if it was
> accompanied by a sessionID.  I envision web forms with the
> bid as a static
> hidden field that comes in on all requests, as the client
> might not know if
> this was the first request or not.)
>
> Is this close?
>
> Ralph
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager