Re: [core] Confirmable message

peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl> Tue, 31 January 2017 07:55 UTC

Return-Path: <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D821293FF for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:55:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 mg-jSMr8rSXz for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:54:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net (lb1-smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net [194.109.24.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A491120726 for <core@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:54:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.xs4all.nl ([194.109.20.200]) by smtp-cloud6.xs4all.net with ESMTP id evuv1u00A4K0fSy01vuvGZ; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:54:56 +0100
Received: from AMontpellier-654-1-247-29.w92-133.abo.wanadoo.fr ([92.133.18.29]) by webmail.xs4all.nl with HTTP (HTTP/1.1 POST); Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:54:55 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:54:55 +0100
From: peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
To: Michel Veillette <Michel.Veillette@trilliantinc.com>
Organization: vanderstok consultancy
Mail-Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
In-Reply-To: <BN6PR06MB2308C3D1CB60B90FDAFFB0E5FE4B0@BN6PR06MB2308.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAOPRf-f9mxjArhB0FLto32xXxKxrLnR=dKET+H+BtBrFRi+dEQ@mail.gmail.com> <BN6PR06MB2308C3D1CB60B90FDAFFB0E5FE4B0@BN6PR06MB2308.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <f4ce70be995ec17b9d26d85ab56dcc87@xs4all.nl>
X-Sender: stokcons@xs4all.nl
User-Agent: XS4ALL Webmail
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/6gpz0DrIXk_TvGoqXnRipRWnENY>
Cc: Ana Minaburo <ana@minaburo.com>, Core <core@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [core] Confirmable message
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: consultancy@vanderstok.org
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:55:00 -0000

Hi Ana,

Why not solve this in the gateway and elide the Con flag?
Removes the problem of not LPWAN aware clients contacting LPWAN servers.

Peter

Michel Veillette schreef op 2017-01-30 15:41:
> Hi Ana
> 
> In CoMI, "NON confirmable messages" are supported though
> notifications.
> 
> In section
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-comi-00#section-5.5.1 [1],
> the sentence
> 
> "To check that the client is still alive, the server MUST send
> confirmable notifications once in a while."
> 
> implicitly confirm this option.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Michel
> 
> FROM: core [mailto:core-bounces@ietf.org] ON BEHALF OF Ana Minaburo
> SENT: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 3:42 AM
> TO: Core <core@ietf.org>; peter van der Stok <stokcons@xs4all.nl>
> SUBJECT: [core] Confirmable message
> 
> Hi Peter
> 
> In the draft, draft-vanderstok-core-comi-11.txt,  you mention that a
> confirmable message is mandatory for carry CoMi requests. We
> understand that for setting a value it is necessary to be sure that
> the information has been correctly received. In LPWAN WG we are
> studying the way to compress header and reduce traffic on very
> constraint links. Do you think, it could be possible to suppress this
> constraint and allow the use of NON confirmable messages ?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Ana
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-comi-00#section-5.5.1
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> core@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core