IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn-interest] Comments on RFC 5050

Amy Alford <aloomis@sarn.org> Fri, 21 June 2013 00:38 UTC

Return-Path: <aloomis@sarn.org>
X-Original-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3439121F9B4B for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 tsCvk5xUJlxb for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:38:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x233.google.com (mail-ob0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEAC421F9B86 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id xk17so7910418obc.10 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=tIGb6MZCcSmLjh/PxfuNu4SHRW5nXq4mlMc9B3HkFXU=; b=paL2Ms5/GbK0ddKhtGcPq78qS1HgmwRvx247F1P9TFml76CIWoVC7h1H923l06lCZI QjDtIn2EynB7ld9O88UX2pCBwVY0mytHfUIk8uJ7lVu42o2mL1573PPQMhtlarVlKLqM UW2SjNbuXSCHMyMvqmFxIW8dcczjPlfx1UAc43GdFAE4zcFtU27HSGoSTP9JGKvKJU+G p5mcQczv4bUoBjotj+IF8BtiX6jDjkMhl58cl0XLQd0ZYf3fcAy6xe1qdDQImWV9e2kK ee2x3B5VcHZh7PVH6Bs4SWhrOsRb53lP2K98EpwwyYL5kIov5BDSo0F5R2kyELrHfVJD /ESw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.44.209 with SMTP id g17mr5432187oem.23.1371775116130; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.102.201 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51C0239C.5080104@cased.de>
References: <51C0239C.5080104@cased.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:38:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAB9rx+-2=ScTYSGJH-4Ot2aAvdAW6E+0GJG2DsdrfGqSMH_teQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amy Alford <aloomis@sarn.org>
To: Michael Noisternig <michael.noisternig@cased.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11331206824f6104df9f4839"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQncaZYs9519rQ1EQQil4zDviDI8A52CGahUOAdmqgFhsSS6spx8xBy7XRV9zWhW14x28HN7
Cc: dtn-interest@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] Comments on RFC 5050
X-BeenThere: dtn-interest@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group \(DTNRG\) - Announce." <dtn-interest.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn-interest>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 00:38:48 -0000

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Michael Noisternig <
michael.noisternig@cased.de> wrote:

>  4.3., last paragraph:
> Why the restriction that "the block processing flags must be set to zero
> on all blocks that follow the payload block"?
>

I can answer this little detail.

The sentence is "The 'Block must be replicated in every fragment' bit in
the block
   processing flags must be set to zero on all blocks that follow the
   payload block"

Reactive fragmentation is impossible if post-payload blocks might have the
"block must be replicated in every fragment" bit set.  A receiving node
wouldn't know if the partial bundle it had received was missing any blocks
with this bit set.  Any time a node receives a partial bundle which
includes some payload, it may turn it into a fragment (unless the "do not
fragment" flag is set on the primary block).

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email