Re: [bfcpbis] transaction issue
"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> Fri, 22 June 2012 17:57 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 59BC521F86CF for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 q-+zXp+QWTiN for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BFB721F86C9 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=eckelcu@cisco.com; l=1554; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1340387856; x=1341597456; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Qe0sa41g45CZLXWVOmx1zFTKwg2mbvbtIXGlFcWKTJY=; b=T4OrzQMnbm+x5bqztzKZqwplVH6jTjrGQSDgIZNps0z2SWLjk2ataLlR i+NhfH0WpB7xiel7ptfBqkw3hakLUKAQ+Fb/VP4Ze2ELNtwRyMFDQLha/ tvEr5AkGhC5yvXV5nByTAdglpqgUSsnHUxoH9dDjpE6ziySGkqtsH8/I3 w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAEux5E+tJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABFtWSBB4IYAQEBBAEBAQ8BJy4GCwwEAgEIEQQBAQEKFAkHJwsUCQgCBAENBQgah2gBC5ogoAIEiy6FImADnloBhGyBZoJf
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,459,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="95060446"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Jun 2012 17:57:36 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com [173.36.12.81]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5MHva44021672 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:57:36 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com ([169.254.3.248]) by xhc-aln-x07.cisco.com ([173.36.12.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:57:35 -0500
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: "Tom Kristensen (tomkrist)" <tomkrist@cisco.com>, Woo Johnman <wuym2000cn@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] transaction issue
Thread-Index: AQHNUH+a8hhbO/9pTkSdnORC9pDIZ5cGn7bQ
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:56:28 +0000
Message-ID: <92B7E61ADAC1BB4F941F943788C0882801B3E0@xmb-aln-x08.cisco.com>
References: <CAMxBvpCckVJmRQdatTXgmqKOfW=Ev_G2Knp0=yqLFJcw57-xtA@mail.gmail.com> <4FCCB307.40001@cisco.com> <4FE47AD0.5090603@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FE47AD0.5090603@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [171.68.122.35]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-18988.006
x-tm-as-result: No--58.099400-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, 'Tom Kristensen' <2mkristensen@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [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, 22 Jun 2012 17:57:37 -0000
(as an individual) That matches my understanding/assumption as well. Adding text to make that assumption explicit sounds good to me. Cheers, Charles > -----Original Message----- > From: bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:bfcpbis-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Kristensen (tomkrist) > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 7:02 AM > To: Woo Johnman > Cc: bfcpbis@ietf.org; 'Tom Kristensen' > Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] transaction issue > > On 06/04/2012 03:07 PM, Tom Kristensen wrote: > > On 06/01/2012 11:59 AM, Woo Johnman wrote: > >> 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)? > > Woo, > > > > Thanks for the comment. I have to read the text chunks related to this > > once more and rethink this approach; I'll be back! > > So, I have always assumed the restrictions to send one request at a > time, applied per connection/association between one client-server pair. > > I'm ready to change and clarify the draft text to express just that. Any > protests/other views out there? > > -- Tom > > _______________________________________________ > bfcpbis mailing list > bfcpbis@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis
- [bfcpbis] transaction issue Woo Johnman
- Re: [bfcpbis] transaction issue Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] transaction issue Tom Kristensen
- Re: [bfcpbis] transaction issue Charles Eckel (eckelcu)