[bfcpbis] handling of lost and out of order messages

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> Fri, 18 November 2011 09:08 UTC

Return-Path: <eckelcu@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F391E21F85D1 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:08:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.254
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.254 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.345, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3QsixpHZMZUU for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:08:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F3A321F85CE for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:08:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=eckelcu@cisco.com; l=874; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1321607331; x=1322816931; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:from:to; bh=7kuweZVY+8kjhOBgf6/9t7ymTd9RRVfO6YBWxY/FRXM=; b=j68YvwNf3DUafnXMKWivb0/wYo2usNDsCHOF7I5RIuWTVRWutw7KvyDg g0H9OJ3pF3w+gj4wE8gqMxJVXlRU4hHyymntoxuztyzAwlQIjdTnyFiBH YM0LWzqcFGItBaRyfJQD+1sG7BZfJrPkf9hUvijCetBf8dCYqtOWpazgr M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArEGAAQgxk6rRDoI/2dsb2JhbABCqG2BVoEFgXQBBBIBHQpRASoDAxgHUAcBBBsanmOBJgGeTYcCgjJjBIgWkWaMWw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,532,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="14978964"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Nov 2011 09:08:50 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAI98o1U003952 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:08:50 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.111]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:08:50 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:08:48 -0800
Message-ID: <E1CBF4C7095A3D4CAAAEAD09FBB8E08C05CC2FD4@xmb-sjc-234.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: handling of lost and out of order messages
Thread-Index: Acyl0a6L5EPtqRRuRry8JsKpuaDKRw==
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Nov 2011 09:08:50.0057 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFA66F90:01CCA5D1]
Subject: [bfcpbis] handling of lost and out of order messages
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <bfcpbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bfcpbis>
List-Post: <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:08:52 -0000

There was a question raised by Hadriel during the WG session concerning
the first FloorRequestStatus getting lost. I provided a partial answer
to this during the session but took the action item to follow up on the
list regarding the details. Here is what is currently in the draft:

   A server-initiated request (e.g. a FloorStatus with an update from
the
   floor control server) received by a participant before the initial
   FloorRequestStatus message that closes the client-initiated
   transaction that was instigated by the FloorRequest MUST be treated
   as superseding the information conveyed in any delinquent response.
   As the floor control server cannot send a second update to the
   implicit floor status subscription until the first is acknowledged,
   ordinality is maintained.

I believe this addresses the concern.

Cheers,
Charles