[6tisch] 6P RESPONSE matching
Gioele Carignani <gioelecarignani@gmail.com> Fri, 30 August 2019 15:29 UTC
Return-Path: <gioelecarignani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD04120A3F for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5-QL1Hhk6x-Y for <6tisch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:29:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32e.google.com (mail-wm1-x32e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EAC8120A3C for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id v15so7811762wml.0 for <6tisch@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:29:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:mime-version:to:from:subject:date:importance; bh=cDaNXxf6h9Rvd1UEMfMz/WPXqw9mnns44TQcQuiQEio=; b=KTS86IgjMj3nvsyawHsF5tTMh3Y0ov+QLTvgROmP/on6Bim989QXuaFiYG765KAhjA mYujrtB0YlNyiPOGkDNNMYJjEVR0MZ7zHBWGlDqlJA1cnBamK3MUQ8G1+0ZyA4LwuF9i e96Nfq7gAkS/J4vlVEO+5UDLVqJtou3t/YCMIUmipxq3SguDwcAnS2uuyV48jbue/9fR vsW7oYHvg6aa3CqYyABgTHKBsP9mdCJ7497hFgA75qDVPzWpX/vExlH8gba9cEHV3glR 7Id9nN2BDtIGoPnidYWnFrTMl4JnVrWWPNxYGvOokQ2/5ImuxTZNJXyltQZCssKcptch 131g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:mime-version:to:from:subject:date :importance; bh=cDaNXxf6h9Rvd1UEMfMz/WPXqw9mnns44TQcQuiQEio=; b=C9U90BjQ2612lgne4VzvwxurW+M5dxqti0/9J45BT1cLpIZbpuj9b9XRLIhulS3pa4 LLyxQMd2UFsHa8ooSv8Zsqg/72IdgGaI2gMTzHpgkslkn2+/b4Aj7LHPEY2VSH9gwjvn NETtcTvTHGHRgo+PWdkqZrmiT0z1OdBKN2tVnbiRbawvausuuD6P+pEehjS0lwJLLXM0 /EdoOrrIWDvN3/SGONrEqpyWbyGQ3M5DSi6plaCJfuyI2KpAyQbd4IkIXdwuZyHuMZPX coOGK2egsZC8GvbG2rurJvn0npS0JP8LK1OZWJyYlGPFWW4wFhghmZErgpRJGoLVZP2/ tUOA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUR6JpPmqOAZJOoUdqlbR7+epfDgU5waN5q0KV8svXrOKinnspI eZeobEFsuaLXkRCv1xdkQm3cVbwjSg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwOn9VG/F3quEDJR4iQrpy0BhBfpzgLHq+SejYNMlQS3bD3fmiwl2ufc/2NjeGvWD/6ye4OTg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:24cf:: with SMTP id 15mr4719772wmu.76.1567178963214; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:::ffff:10.102.25.219? (host-131-114-209-157.m.unipi.it. [131.114.209.157]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c201sm12538589wmd.33.2019.08.30.08.29.22 for <6tisch@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5d6940d2.1c69fb81.ea017.b5bf@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>
From: Gioele Carignani <gioelecarignani@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 17:29:22 +0200
Importance: normal
X-Priority: 3
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_13FA43EC-1A4B-484A-93E0-1FA41242A033_"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6tisch/X2daEuSM7fY2iXQ8y43B05tXCh0>
Subject: [6tisch] 6P RESPONSE matching
X-BeenThere: 6tisch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tisch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6tisch/>
List-Post: <mailto:6tisch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch>, <mailto:6tisch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:29:28 -0000
Hi all, I was looking into RFC 8480, and I would like to know how RESPONSE messages with an inconsistent SeqNum (for example the SeqNum that would be used for the next transaction) are treated. Under the assumption that this RESPONSE messages does not match any REQUEST, will this message simply be ignored or is a CLEAR transaction started? Thank you
- [6tisch] 6P RESPONSE matching Gioele Carignani
- Re: [6tisch] 6P RESPONSE matching Xavi Vilajosana Guillen