[bfcpbis] RFC4582bis: What is the transaction model behind Error/ErrorAck?

"Horvath, Ernst" <ernst.horvath@siemens-enterprise.com> Fri, 15 June 2012 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ernst.horvath@siemens-enterprise.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 E779F21F8589 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 YZ3GaOszocJv for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53A9321F857F for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by senmx12-mx.siemens-enterprise.com (Server) with ESMTP id ABF5323F04F6 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:56:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from MCHP03MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.2.115]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.01.0339.001; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:56:29 +0200
From: "Horvath, Ernst" <ernst.horvath@siemens-enterprise.com>
To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RFC4582bis: What is the transaction model behind Error/ErrorAck?
Thread-Index: Ac1K9kZJSdtXBXd9T9+etIqh4qBCyA==
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:56:29 +0000
Message-ID: <C2BCA7974025BD459349BED0D06E48BB01648D@MCHP03MSX.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: de-AT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.26.0.183]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [bfcpbis] RFC4582bis: What is the transaction model behind Error/ErrorAck?
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, 15 Jun 2012 12:56:34 -0000

Hi,

I have a problem understanding the use of ErrorAck.

For unreliable transport RFC4582bis describes two transaction types:

1) Client-initiated: A client (chair or participant) sends a request to the server and receives a Status or an Error message back; the client runs T1 and retransmits the request if no response arrives in time, but the server does not run T1 and does not retransmit the response (Status or Error) unless triggered by receipt of a retransmitted request. The client does not send a StatusAck for the response.

2) Server-initiated: The server sends a notification (i.e. a follow-up status message) to the client and receives a StatusAck back. The server runs T1 and retransmits the notification if no StatusAck arrives, but the client does not retransmit the StatusAck unless triggered by a retransmitted notification. 
(Question: Can the client send an Error message instead of StatusAck? Error seems to be reserved for the direction server to client, but the draft is not 100% clear about that.)

Now, how does ErrorAck fit in? Error is the backward message in a two-step (request/reponse) transaction model, and BFCPbis did not introduce a three-step (request/response/ack) model, right? Or can Error be used as a transaction-initiating request, with ErrorAck forming the response? If so, this is currently not described.

Regards,
Ernst Horvath