Subject: [NSIS] closing GIST issue 57 (R flag setting)

From: "Hancock, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 14:18:31 +0100

Dear all,

An issue was raised during the interoperability test about how to set
the GIST R (reply) flag in the common header for the various types
of message. (The draft was clear about the MA-Hello but not about the
other message types.) See also:

http://nsis.srmr.co.uk/cgi-bin/roundup.cgi/nsis-ntlp-issues/issue57

The following text has been added to C.2.1 and the rest of the draft
updated where appropriate:

   The rules governing the use of the R-flag depend on the GIMPS message
   type.  It must always be set in Query messages (these always elicit a
   Response), and never in Confirm, Data or Error messages.  It is
   optional in a MA-Hello; if set, another MA-Hello is sent in reply.
   It is optional in a Response (but must be set if the Response
   contains a Responder cookie); if set, a Confirm is sent in reply.

Hoping this is unambiguous,

robert h.

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 22:04:29 +0300

Robert,

What to do if a node recieves a Query without the R-flag set, if 
the R-Flag is set in Conrim / Data / error, etc?  Should we define
the reciever behavior?

John 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
>Behalf Of ext Hancock, Robert
>Sent: 01 September, 2005 16:19
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [NSIS] closing GIST issue 57 (R flag setting)
>
>Dear all,
>
>An issue was raised during the interoperability test about how 
>to set the GIST R (reply) flag in the common header for the 
>various types of message. (The draft was clear about the 
>MA-Hello but not about the other message types.) See also:
>
>The following text has been added to C.2.1 and the rest of the 
>draft updated where appropriate:
>

---

From: "Hancock, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 20:02:24 +0100

john,

a tricky one. my temptation is to view this as a packet format
error; although you can imagine recovery (pretend the R flag was
what it should have been), in fact, any implementation which
generates packets with this sort of error probably has all sorts
of other errors in it too. best to fail safely and sort it out
with an error message (unless of course it arrives in an error
message, in which case I guess the safest thing to do is 
drop it silently).

we may do some re-jigging of the common header errors to make 
this into a subcode within the set of common header format 
errors.

r.

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 02 September 2005 20:04
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [NSIS] closing GIST issue 57 (R flag setting)
> 
> 
> Robert,
>