Subject: RE: [AAA-WG]: Request for closure on issue 235

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 10:06:29 -0600

Pat R. Calhoun [[email-masked]] wrote:
 
>> Do people believe generating the D-bit reliably is a trivial burden 
>> on the sender?  If  so then it does no harm, because the receiver 
>> can always ignore it.  But I don't think  it's that trivial.  As a 
>> receiver I'd be very wary of depending on the sender to trigger 
>> the dup check. 
>
>Check, and if receivers aren't likely to trust the sender to inform 
>it of a duplicate, does having this in the protocol even make sense? 
>
 
Receivers could trust the sender if the specification mandates that
the sender mark potential duplicates with the "D" bit.
 
Of course the D-bit is not intended to be set in every record, as it
would remove the uniqueness checking performance benefit. And
if the accounting systems have to be absolutely certain they could
take the post-processing aproach to resolve duplicates. But there are
accounting systems that need to do this check much more rapidly and
cannot wait for post-processing. 
 
>PatC 
 
-Basavaraj

---

From: Barney Wolff <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:30:17 -0500

Is the specification executable?  How did I miss this breakthrough?
Barney