Subject: [issue68] Section 5.1 ACK issue

From: David Putzolu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:25:32 +0000

New submission from David Putzolu <[email-masked]>:

For the ACK indicator, under the guideline of being conservative in
what we send, I would suggest the flag MUST be set to zero by the sender for 
all messages other than Config and heartbeat.  Also note that the language as 
currently written says the flag must be ignored for heartbeat messages, which 
is probably incorrect.

----------
category: Technical
draft: draft-ietf-forces-protocol
messages: 368
nosy: dputzolu
priority: Must fix
status: Need clarifying text
title: Section 5.1 ACK issue

___________________________________________________
Forces issue tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/forces/issue68>
___________________________________________________

---

From: "Wang,Weiming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:17:01 +0800

David,

Thanks for catching this. It was actually the inconsistency coming from the
change of HB with formerly no response to currently with response.

Avri,
pls just change the sentense "Note that for all other  messages than Config
Message this flag MUST be ignored." to "Note that for all other  messages this
flag MUST be ignored by the message receiver."

Pls also help to update the following change, I think there were some
change:
           Also note that messages other than Config and HB Messages,
           whose requirements for responses are described by the message
           definitions in Section 6, we summarise the default
           requirements of these messages and the expected responses
           below.  Detailed descriptions can be found in the individual
           message definitions:
To:
           Also note that, other than Config and HB Messages, requirements
            for responses of messages  are all given in a default way rather
           than by ACK flags.  We summarise the default
           requirements of these messages and the expected responses
           as below.  Detailed descriptions can be found in the individual
           message definitions in Section 6.

Thanks.

David,
I think to say MUST ignore may be better to MUST set to zero. This is because
for messages like Query, it actually also has response which acts as ACK. We
only define that for messages like Query, if ACK flag is set to other values
than "AlwaysACK", it will still be ACKed.  Some coders may prefer still set the
flag to "AlwaysACK" even they know other flag values can also work. I think we
should allow this case for coders.

Thanks,
Weiming

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Putzolu" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 4:25 AM
Subject: [issue68] Section 5.1 ACK issue

----------
category: Technical