Subject: Re: [core] #174: Robust observation relationships

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:10:16 -0000

#174: Robust observation relationships

Comment (by cabo@…):

 A proposal for a solution is in coap-misc-12 ("Pledge").  There may be no
 need to put this in the base -observe spec.
 Do we need to keep this ticket open (i.e., to indeed make the addition in
 the base -observe?)

-- 
-----------------------------------+-----------------------
 Reporter:  hartke@…               |       Owner:  hartke@…
     Type:  protocol defect        |      Status:  reopened
 Priority:  major                  |   Milestone:
Component:  observe                |     Version:
 Severity:  Submitted WG Document  |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                         |
-----------------------------------+-----------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/174#comment:3>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>

---

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:53:28 -0000

Comment (by cabo@…):

 If Pledge or something similar is the medium-term solution, maybe there is
 one last thing that could be added to base -observe now:
 An implementation note with a short discussion of the inaccuracy of clocks
 and the influence of propagation delays — a naive implementation might
 have the re-subscribe of the client and new notification after max-age
 cross over each other.

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/174#comment:4>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>