[bfcpbis] transaction issue
Woo Johnman <wuym2000cn@gmail.com> Fri, 01 June 2012 09:59 UTC
Return-Path: <wuym2000cn@gmail.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 3160121F8665 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 02:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.181, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 xN5xQDJVvkQF for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 02:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-f44.google.com (mail-qa0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92ADA21F865F for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 02:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qadz3 with SMTP id z3so249646qad.10 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 02:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=InwuakMUVL9V202+abJ84sVHEUVfQPs7t7fECZ7ug2k=; b=PA/CZ1FVoIbDPY2RH6m7xPGB50HpOoAFtgjckXoa9HjXMZbqJMEP7/DXCRyPzjXE6w 5Vkf8vWDUNR6wFzRn/Jc/XEp/i2pRXnifRqWYj9QWkE3NhL1H2whHJTU+CAYEd6zZ5W9 tZx9mF0vSe7g8WMBjl8OfBVgd0MGjIIlcK81xG6qADQkJ4elQlqjW9xKW0FTXhCm71gA 7HxeSWjC2WB5oK0Mm3qm16YqGkXqIPZJ3DTTsPst7MGsFEgI2tWD8yTBVOPOhHDdlsWu Zim8ar7Q5+4VFZZtxmOv2p/m1NWvo1a4WcoYp2++++2Dpk7EVHPgRcOdp2JXjEo98dS3 Y+lg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.105.202 with SMTP id u10mr3475937qao.54.1338544761042; Fri, 01 Jun 2012 02:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.239.19 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 02:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:59:20 +0800
Message-ID: <CAMxBvpCckVJmRQdatTXgmqKOfW=Ev_G2Knp0=yqLFJcw57-xtA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Woo Johnman <wuym2000cn@gmail.com>
To: bfcpbis@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [bfcpbis] transaction issue
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, 01 Jun 2012 09:59:22 -0000
Hi, The RFC4582bis says:"As described in previous paragraph every entity - client or server - is only allowed to send one request at a time, and await the acknowledging response." I think the condition of only one pending request at a time is too hard. Is it more suitable that there is one pending request at a time per conference or ever per connection(client-server)? Regards, Youngmin
- [bfcpbis] transaction issue Woo Johnman
- Re: [bfcpbis] transaction issue Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] transaction issue Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] transaction issue Charles Eckel (eckelcu)