[consult] Additional background information

At 16:07 +0000 3/14/07, michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:

>First, I think that the staff should monitor and adjust this limit as
>required. If the server would log all queries that hit the limit, then
>staff could analyze them to see what was causing the issue. In some
>cases it will be legitimate queries for organizations with lots of
>records, or organizations with similar names. If the limit can be raised
>to accomodate more of these queries then just do it without consulting
>us.

I would like to follow up Michael's thought with a question - has 
staff be doing that monitoring and if so, what are the results? 
(That's a general question.)

How many times are responses truncated, is there a pattern of a 
truncated response being followed by a modified query (evidence that 
the client is adjusting or "diving" deeper)?

Further, is the staff uncomfortable with changing the limit without 
membership approval?  I.e., why has this consultation been opened 
instead of following the recommendation Michael has made?

>In addition, I think that you should implement some type of regular
>expression matching to search a result set. For instance, let me see all

I think that is out of scope for the consultation.  Said not in 
disagreement, but it seems that the question on the table is the 256 
object limit in the response.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Sarcasm doesn't scale.