Re: [core] message correlation on CoAP
Robert Cragie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com> Fri, 08 January 2016 16:17 UTC
Return-Path: <robert.cragie@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFFB91B2A1E for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 08:17:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.423
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 wnWYzQUm0Kb6 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 08:17:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com (mail-lf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C412F1B2A1D for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 08:17:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id i124so10349435lfe.3 for <core@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 08:17:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9KBvW2cK9oPszcEzkF14+6ps48AWH6v0PVzaYyXoFTM=; b=E05hOP2DeW/OS+bRwkeyyFxs05kBTGinGKk1UtKPj0kcV8i5ewo30BDEhpijl6y69q 0hF3qTYcze8XRtiqKh0aT8A3ZZKJ21CCr2zp/FncfJPFi/fL90sPGA3GWkgZwaQxff8B eLqRVUh6YElft482aaqyUxhSl0rlh2bcXiYf2ID+7KTbQPzBoZ72U2Q6BUHpvawHlwed dbuCg/2gMI+BJCHe7lrZ5qojQjvjrjYffDZVZCGY0NPllUY+btP1mOh8BmpBPNcstK8/ sQyTetMjZiDNn3kqYQJwt9T/YG3EnARHkRCbhZHzxX7V57DKerkNwefdCwgxPqCsoe8C 6tOg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.25.21.225 with SMTP id 94mr37287548lfv.159.1452269819804; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 08:16:59 -0800 (PST)
Sender: robert.cragie@gmail.com
Received: by 10.25.143.68 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 08:16:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAEgyW4oLKrD4EMxsU7v+K0CjM8_KDUii5mRw9-1TiPjv4Et26A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEgyW4r1w=5jdBa8Rxs40ee+2kf=qVgLT7mSa5LxwdKCeF4nPQ@mail.gmail.com> <CADrU+dKv6GhD3Rkw5S4EEqBFJu6YqxqUCmLZ74Tey8dT3fAy3A@mail.gmail.com> <CAEgyW4oLKrD4EMxsU7v+K0CjM8_KDUii5mRw9-1TiPjv4Et26A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 16:16:59 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: zxfBxbFsKgwlbXnBhia7wwRgdGY
Message-ID: <CADrU+dLtysehEyPj6fEwZNUk7eTtfp2F_Wa4tL9v7zJ-xujVww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Robert Cragie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com>
To: "R.Vinob chander" <vinobchanderr@ssn.edu.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f245eba44af0528d4ea91"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/M-AQEuyYhCzxmhpDOBHMz78gsRk>
Cc: "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [core] message correlation on CoAP
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: robert.cragie@gridmerge.com
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: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 16:17:05 -0000
Hi Vinod, Comments inline, bracketed by <RCC></RCC> Robert On 8 January 2016 at 15:36, R.Vinob chander <vinobchanderr@ssn.edu.in> wrote: > thank u... u r right.....but the a receiver may get multiple copies of the same message if the ACK is lost in transit..(sec. 4.5). So in such cases the same message ID is used within the EXCHANGE_LIFETIME. > > <RCC>Not really - retransmitting a CON message due to lost ACK does not constitute reusing the same Message ID as it is essentially the same message retransmitted. The emphasis is on *re*using; using the same message ID again in the retransmission is not *re*using. So I think the original text is OK.</RCC> > Hence i think probably the sentence should be "The same Message ID MUST NOT be reused (in communicating with the same endpoint) within the first timeout for CON and MAX_LATENCY for NON" > > 4.4. Message Correlation > > The same Message ID MUST NOT be reused (in communicating with the > > same endpoint) within the EXCHANGE_LIFETIME > > > 4.5. Message Deduplication > > A recipient might receive the same Confirmable message (as indicated > by the Message ID and source endpoint) multiple times within the > EXCHANGE_LIFETIME > > > 4.8.2. > > NON_LIFETIME is the time from sending a Non-confirmable message to > the time its Message ID can be safely reused. *If multiple > transmission of a NON message is not used, its value is > MAX_LATENCY, or 100 seconds*. However, *a CoAP sender might send a > NON message multiple times*, in particular for multicast > applications. While the period of reuse is not bounded by the > specification, an expectation of reliable detection of duplication > at the receiver is on the timescales of MAX_TRANSMIT_SPAN. > Therefore, for this purpose, it is safer to use the value: > > MAX_TRANSMIT_SPAN + MAX_LATENCY > > <RCC>The same applies for NON; retransmitting a NON (for example, for robustness in the case of multicast) does not constitute reusing of the message ID as it is essentially the same message retransmitted.</RCC> > please clarify.. > > <RCC>I hope the above clarifies things</RCC> > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Robert Cragie <robert.cragie@gridmerge.com > > wrote: > >> I think it is correct as written - the same ID must not be used within >> EXCHANGE_LIFETIME. You can add NON_LIFETIME as well. The message ID >> certainly can be reused beyond those lifetimes as the occurrence of the >> message ID for acknowledgement or duplication detection is no longer >> expected. >> >> Robert >> >> On 8 January 2016 at 03:58, R.Vinob chander <vinobchanderr@ssn.edu.in> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> sec. 4.4 of RFC 7252 specifies >>> >>> The same Message ID MUST NOT be reused (in communicating with the >>> same endpoint) within the EXCHANGE_LIFETIME >>> >>> I think the sentence is incorrect and should b, >>> >>> The same Message ID MUST NOT be reused (in communicating with the >>> same endpoint) *beyond* the EXCHANGE_LIFETIME/NON_LIFETIME >>> >>> Regards, >>> -- >>> R. Vinob chander, B.E., M.E., (Ph.D) >>> Assistant Professor, Department of IT >>> SSN College of Engineering, >>> Old Mahabalipuram Road >>> Kalavakkam - 603 110 >>> Tamil Nadu, India >>> www.ssn.edu.in >>> >>> Phone: +9144-27469700 , +91 44 27474844/45/46 >>> Extn: 370 >>> Mob: +91-9566101580 >>> >>> ::DISCLAIMER:: >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and >>> intended for the named recipient(s) only. Views or opinions, if any, >>> presented in this email are solely those of the author and may not >>> necessarily reflect the views or opinions of SSN Institutions (SSN) or its >>> affiliates. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, >>> modification, distribution and / or publication of this message without the >>> prior written consent of authorized representative of SSN is strictly >>> prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete it and >>> notify the sender immediately. >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Header of this mail should have a valid DKIM signature for the domain ssn.edu.in <http://www.ssn.edu.in/> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> core mailing list >>> core@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core >>> >>> >> > > > -- > R. Vinob chander, B.E., M.E., (Ph.D) > Assistant Professor, Department of IT > SSN College of Engineering, > Old Mahabalipuram Road > Kalavakkam - 603 110 > Tamil Nadu, India > www.ssn.edu.in > > Phone: +9144-27469700 , +91 44 27474844/45/46 > Extn: 370 > Mob: +91-9566101580 > > ::DISCLAIMER:: > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > The contents of this e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential and > intended for the named recipient(s) only. Views or opinions, if any, > presented in this email are solely those of the author and may not > necessarily reflect the views or opinions of SSN Institutions (SSN) or its > affiliates. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, > modification, distribution and / or publication of this message without the > prior written consent of authorized representative of SSN is strictly > prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete it and > notify the sender immediately. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Header of this mail should have a valid DKIM signature for the domain ssn.edu.in <http://www.ssn.edu.in/> > >
- [core] message correlation on CoAP R.Vinob chander
- Re: [core] message correlation on CoAP Robert Cragie
- Re: [core] message correlation on CoAP R.Vinob chander
- Re: [core] message correlation on CoAP Robert Cragie