Re: [Pana] Explicit error indication

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

That would work for me.

Jari

Yoshihiro Ohba kirjoitti:
> Let me start a new thread on this subject.
>
> I remember a ZigBee member asked if explicit error indication can be
> sent by a PRE when a PANA message cannot be relayed for some reasons
> (buffer shortage, no route to PAA, etc.).  I think it would be useful
> to add such a feature if there is little impact to RFC 5191 to support
> the feature, as it could reduce unnecessarily retransmissions of PCIs
> from PaCs.  Reduce unnecessarily retransmissions may be good for
> resource constrained networks such as ZigBee.
>
> Explicit error indication can be by means of a new PANA message or a
> new Result-Code.
>
> Processing explicit error indication is like handling
> exceptions/interruptions.  So considerations would be necessarily
> not to interfere with the PANA sequence number processing rule.
> Especially this would be the case where an error indication is
> protected by a PANA SA.  I would expect that we don't need to support
> protected error indication as it would require a complex sequence
> number processing rule such as a separate sequence number space
> dedicated to error indications.
>
> IMHO, a new PANA message (e.g., PANA-Error-Indication)
> carrying sequence number of zero (0) may be simple, something like this:
>
> PaC     PRE
>     --->     PCI
>     <---     PEI[Error-Code="Relay-failed"] // seqno=0
>
> PEI message is unprotected and it can be used only as a hint.
>
> Regards,
> Yoshihiro Ohba
>
> (2011/05/26 13:58), Jari Arkko wrote:
>   
>> Yoshihiro,
>>
>>     
>>> Let me give some time to analyze the impact of this recommendation.
>>>
>>>       
>> Ok. I' not claiming that my solution is necessarily the way forward, but
>> I am worried about the issue.
>>
>> Jari
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>