Subject: RE: Timer Problem

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 10:18:19 +0530

Hi Paul

I think you are right. This does not make any sense and it should be removed.

Regards
Vivek Bansal

"Paul Long" <[email-masked]> on 05/26/2001 10:24:19 PM

To:   [email-masked]
cc:    (bcc: Vivek Bansal/HSS)

Subject:  RE: Timer Problem

Vivek,

This refers to the retransmission timer. When you receive a provisional
response, or Pending, you are required to use a "different," presumably
longer retransmission timer for that transaction (D.1.4: "Entities that
receive a Transaction Pending shall switch to a different repetition timer
for repeating requests."). When you receive the final response, you are
required to switch back to using the original ... oh, wait, I understand
what you're saying now. The final response terminates any future
retransmissions for that transaction, so there is nothing to switch back to.
Therefore, I think the latter part of the sentence that you cite (", and
normal repetition timers shall be used thereafter.") doesn't make sense and
should be removed.

Paul Long
ipDialog, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 12:58 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Timer Problem

Hi

Section D.1.4 indicates

Upon receipt of a final response following receipt of
   provisional responses, an immediate confirmation shall be sent, and
   normal repetition timers shall be used thereafter.

In the last it says normal repetition timers shall be used therafter. The
purpose of this timer is not clear.

Please clarify.

Regards
Vivek

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 06:38:01 +1000

G'Day,

I believe that the text is currently OK. You cannot read a sentence in
the middle of a paragraph by itself. The first sentence states that you
move to a different timers the sentence that you quote below states that
you should move back to your normal (original) timers. I don't think
this needs any change.

Christian

---

From: "Paul Long" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 18:26:53 -0500

Christian,

If you move back to the original timeout value, for what will you use it? If
transactions are independent of one another with regard to this
retransmission layer, once an entity receives a final response for a
transaction, there will be nothing left to time. Or are you saying that
timers for all transactions use the same timeout value, in which case moving
to the new and then back to the original timer value effects all
transactions? The text then makes more sense, but linking possibly parallel
transactions like this causes me greater concern.

Paul Long
ipDialog, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Christian Groves
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 3:38 PM
To: megaco ietf
Subject: Re: Timer Problem

G'Day,

Christian

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 01:31:54 +1000

G'Day Paul,

I'm not saying how you implement the timers - whether its per
transaction or per receiving entity. I just don't think that the
sentence is very contraversial. ie. At the start of the paragraph:
"Entities that receive a Transaction Pending shall switch to a different
repetition timer"
the sentence in question:
"and normal repetition timers shall be used thereafter."

So however you implement the entity which manages this, the sentence in
question is the clause which tells this entity to go back to its normal
timers. I think people are trying to read way too much in this. I'm
assuming that there's been plenty of TCP implementions of this already
which haven't caused this much fuss.
 
Cheers, Christian