Re: [tram] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-tram-stunbis-16

[Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>]

On 04/22/2018 08:30 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 4/21/18 3:39 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> 
>>>>>> Section 6.3.4 states:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    o  If the error code is 500 through 599, the client MAY resend the
>>>>>>       request; clients that do so MUST limit the number of times they do
>>>>>>       this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is reasonable to provide guidance as to the number of re-sends?
>>>>>
>>>>> Same issue here, that's a section that is unmodified from RFC 5389. 
>>>>
>>>> I understand. Now is our chance to fix it. :-)
>>>>
>>>>>  As long as the client does not enter an endless loop of retransmission, choosing different numbers of re-sends does not affect interoperability.
>>>>
>>>> Choosing different numbers is OK, but choosing an infinite number is
>>>> not. Can we provide guidance as to how many is too many? 10? 50? 100?
>>>
>>> Well, the text already states that an infinite number of of re-sends is not compliant.  Anyway, I am not sure how to determine a reasonable number, but I'll try.
>>
>> I chose 4 as the maximum number of retransmissions.  I based that on error code 508 in TURN that defines a delay of 60 seconds between retransmissions, so we now get a delay of 5 minutes before the client gives up in case of insufficient capacity.  The new text reads like this:
>>
>> "o  If the error code is 500 through 599, the client MAY resend the
>>     request; clients that do so MUST limit the number of times they do
>>     this.  Unless a specific error code specifies a different value,
>>     the number of retransmissions MUST be limited to 4."
>>
> 
> "SHOULD be limited to 4" seems fine, but MUST is OK too.
> 

Changed to SHOULD.

Thanks.

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: [e-mail]
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug