Re: MSRP: Are REPORTs per-chunk or per-message? (was Re: [Simple]Review of draft-ietf-simple-message-sessions-08 - Byte Ranges inREPORTs)

[Cullen Jennings <fluffy at cisco.com>]

On 10/11/04 9:08 PM, "David R Oran" <oran at cisco.com> wrote:

> There's a difference between "bigger than a couple of packets", and
> LoTR. I'm guess I'm saying that there is a middle ground between
> something that benefits from chunking to reduce latency when you
> multiplex through a relay, and something which needs to do incremental
> recovery because the MTTR is too long compared to the MTBF for a single
> message.
> 
> Dave.

I agree. 

We went down an incremental path that started with stage 1 the sender runs a
timer waiting for ACK of whole message. Problem here was wanted faster
recovery than acceptable timer level. So got to stage 2 where relay could
NACK a message and ask for immediate resent. But people pointed out wasted
of resend particularly in wireless and got to stage 3 where the NACK
includes the byte range that got lost.





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