Subject: reliability or not reliablility was: [NSIS] mobility-related requirements from nsis-req-08

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 17:06:22 +0300

Hi,

Popping up from vacation:

> Reliable transport in a session protocol, instead of a 
> transport protocol?!!

There are many forms of reliability, in some protocols,
there may need to be different forms of reliability.  Basic signaling
protocols may need explicit acks/nacks; may set timers & if no
response is gotten within the timer, protocol may send again, etc.

The question we have here is, what level of reliability do applications
need?  We have agreed that soft state is needed; also 'session' state
should not be tied to transport state, i.e. - if the transport protocol
session is terminated (for any reason, error, re-routing, time-out, etc)
we don't assume that the session has ended.

Rather than cycling on this, NSLP protocols probably should state
what they need / expect and NTLP should provide this functionality,
in terms of reliability. 

John

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

---

From: "Charles Q. Shen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:22:34 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 10:06 AM
> 
> Rather than cycling on this, NSLP protocols probably should
> state what they need / expect and NTLP should provide this 
> functionality, in terms of reliability. 
> 

It is probably a good idea to include such a discussion in Robert's
upcoming draft about reliability analysis.

Regards,

Charles