Subject: [core] #303: Clarify that ACKs don't get retransmitted, the CONs do

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:15:53 -0000

#303: Clarify that ACKs don't get retransmitted, the CONs do

 Pete Resnick notes (msg04271c):

 Section 2.2

 2.2:

 the response to a request carried in a Confirmable message is carried in
 the resulting Acknowledgement (ACK) message.  This is called a piggy-
 backed response, detailed in Section 5.2.1. [...] If the server is not
 able to respond immediately to a request carried in a Confirmable message,
 it simply responds with an empty Acknowledgement message so that the
 client can stop retransmitting the request.  When the response is ready,
 the server sends it in a new Confirmable message (which then in turn needs
 to be acknowledged by the client).

 It took me a bit to figure out why things worked this way, and I think a
 sentence or two of explanation would be useful. A piggy-backed response to
 a Confirmable request doesn't itself need to be confirmable because if the
 ACK gets lost, the client will  re-transmit the request until it gets the
 answer.

 Carsten says:

 Yes, we could add that explanation. This is at an early stage in the
 exposition, so we have to figure out how to do this without generating
 confusion.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  [email-masked]
  [email-masked]           |     Status:  new
     Type:  editorial    |  Milestone:  post-IESG-1
 Priority:  minor        |    Version:  coap-15
Component:  coap         |   Keywords:
 Severity:  Submitted    |
  WG Document            |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/303>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>

---

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:22:20 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

Comment:

 Fixed in [1352]:

 Try a minimum change to fix #303

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-core-
  [email-masked]           |  [email-masked]
     Type:  editorial    |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  minor        |   Milestone:  post-IESG-1
Component:  coap         |     Version:  coap-15
 Severity:  Submitted    |  Resolution:  fixed
  WG Document            |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: </ticket/303#comment:1>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>