Subject: [core] #290: Mention PROCESSING_DELAY when discussion piggy-backing

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 12:22:15 -0000

#290: Mention PROCESSING_DELAY when discussion piggy-backing

 Michael Scharf (tsv-dir reviewer) notes (msg04191-tsvdir-2):

 Section 5.2.1

 * Section 4.8.2

 »o PROCESSING_DELAY is the time a node takes to turn around a Confirmable
 message into an acknowledgement.  We assume the node will attempt to send
 an ACK before having the sender time out, so as a conservative assumption
 we set it equal to ACK_TIMEOUT.«

 => I assume that the spec wants to say "a receiver MUST have sent an ACK
 after PROCESSING_DELAY"? I have not found that requirement elsewhere in
 the document. If it is not a MUST requirement, the calculations involving
 PROCESSING_DELAY seem to be not the worst case and are therefore not
 really useful for worst-case analysis.

 Carsten Bormann plans to reply:

 The worst-case analysis is about as robust as that for TCP 2MSL. There is
 absolutely no assurance in IP that data won't be in the network longer
 than MSL (and I sure have measured latencies way higher).  The analysis
 describes what we try to guard against, not the absolute worst case.

 But I agree that the discussion of when to piggy-back (5.2.1) could
 include a mention of PROCESSING_DELAY.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  [email-masked]
  [email-masked]           |     Status:  new
     Type:  editorial    |  Milestone:  post-IESG-1
 Priority:  minor        |    Version:  coap-14
Component:  coap         |   Keywords:
 Severity:  Submitted    |
  WG Document            |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/290>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>

---

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:42:14 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 Fixed in [1287]:

 Fix #290 (actually mention PROCESSING_DELAY at the start of 5.2.2)

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-core-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  editorial    |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  minor        |   Milestone:  post-IESG-1
Component:  coap         |     Version:  coap-14
 Severity:  Submitted    |  Resolution:  fixed
  WG Document            |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: </ticket/290#comment:1>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>