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

[Ben Campbell <ben at nostrum.com>]

On Oct 12, 2004, at 4:27 AM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> 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.

I have to point out that we do not require the sender to do anything 
about a failure message. It is allowed to attempt to resend on a new 
session, but it is also allowed to just give up in disgust.

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


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