Subject: [issue21] TML Timeliness - Obsoleteing messages

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 14:20:10 +0000

New submission from Avri Doria <[email-masked]>:

In Section 4 TML Requirements

Timeliness

       Editorial Note:  Does the TML allow for obsoleting msgs? If yes,
                        it needs to define how.

----------
category: Technical
draft: draft-ietf-forces-protocol
messages: 38
nosy: avri
priority: Must fix
status: No discussion
title: TML Timeliness - Obsoleteing messages

___________________________________________________
Forces issue tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/forces/issue21>
___________________________________________________

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 02:07:04 -0400

While obsoleting messages is attractive, I think the TML should not have this.

The first thing that occurred to me was that maybe we could have an 
optional obsoleting mechanism?  We could, but it seems to me the complexity 
of putting optional capabilities in the TML is a bad trade.

The other issue is that if we want to be able to use a stock or nearly 
stock TCP as a TML, it can not obsolete messages.

At the same time, I am doubtful about the overall value of obsoleting 
messages.  Any situation in which one side or the other might want to 
obsolete messages, it would still have to deal with "too late, its gone out 
already."  SO obsoleting messages is always going to introduce more code 
complexity.

There are some interesting questions that need some thought about what the 
PL / TML can or should do if the FE-CE link does get seriously congested.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Weiming Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 22:20:32 +0800

So many issues listed. I have to be more to the point.

Agree that obsoleting messages by PL is not a good enough choice for timeliness of message transport.  Message priorities may help timeliness more or less.   

Thanks,
Weiming