Date:         Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:56:24 -0500
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Mark Needleman - DRA <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: is session id included in susequent request?
Comments: To: Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: cc: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Ray

but then you get the wasted resource you referred to - they may not be a
lot of resources but they are still potentially wasted - but thats ok with
me I suppose

mark


On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Ray Denenberg wrote:

> Mark Needleman - DRA wrote:
>
> > this seems to be a case of Reference Id in reverse and could be handled
> > the same way - if supplied by the server it must be returned by the
> > client?
>
> No. What I'm hearing is that we don't want to force anyone to support
> sessions. So if the server supplies one, the client can ignore it. --Ray
>