RE: [NSIS] GIMPS features

["Hancock, Robert" <robert.hancock at roke.co.uk>]

Hi Georgios,

don't worry, datagram mode is safe with us.

robert h.

-----Original Message-----
From: Georgios Karagiannis [mailto:karagian at cs.utwente.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 3:21 PM
To: Hancock, Robert; nsis at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [NSIS] GIMPS features


Hi John and Robert

Regarding the open issue described in Section 8.8, can I consider that it
is only related to "Single shot message support "
and not to the support of the Datagram mode.
I consider that both Connection (C) and Datagram (D)  mode operations are
supported by
GIMPS.

Best Regards,
Georgios



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <john.loughney at nokia.com>
To: <robert.hancock at roke.co.uk>; <nsis at ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 3:01 PM
Subject: RE: [NSIS] GIMPS features


> Hi Robert,
>
> > One of the items on our plans for GIMPS we made in
> > Seoul was to look for items to remove (before we add
> > any more...)
> >
> > At the moment, I don't believe there is anything in the
> > core spec that can be removed (without opening the
> > whole C/D-mode discussion again, which is not the
> > point).
> >
> > However, there are some possibilities listed in the
> > open issues section which at the moment it seems we
> > could survive without. They are:
> >
> > 8.7 State teardown - the ability to allow GIMPS
> > (or someone above GIMPS) to signal in the protocol
> > that state *at the GIMPS level* isn't needed any
> > more. My impression is that GIMPS level state itself
> > is not so expensive that we need to be able to remove it
> > efficiently, and that soft-state is good enough to
> > handle cleanup. Allowing explicit teardown then
> > also means we have an extra security threat to worry
> > about.
> >
> > 8.8 Single shot message support - some facility
> > provided by GIMPS to deliver a single message in some
> > reliable way without going through the whole C-mode
> > procedure. I'm not sure (in reality) how much more efficient
> > this can be made than C-mode, and how often an NSLP will
> > want to deliver just one message like this; so, my feeling
> > would be say it is 'all or nothing'. (We could reflect
> > such a potentiality in the conceptual API provided by
> > GIMPS, but actually just implement it with C-mode.)
> >
> > Would anyone object to closing these two issues?
> > (And anything else people would like to see the back of?)
>
> I don't object to closing these.
>
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> nsis at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
>

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
nsis at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis