Subject: Re: [core] #393 (coap-tcp-tls): Observing resource over reliable transports

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:33:17 -0000

#393: Observing resource over reliable transports

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 (1) -- I agree with the proposed solution.

 (2) -- we need text that empty messages are no-ops and can be used as a
 keep-alive mechanism.

 (3) -- this is a problem that most applications that start using reliable
 streams run into.  Early implementations sometimes ignore the need for
 proper flow control.  That is not a reason to add more mechanism (that
 would also not be in those early implementations), but the solution should
 be to use the flow control mechanisms we already have.  Maybe an LWIG
 document could have information about flow control support in
 implementations, e.g., http://www.w3.org/TR/websockets/#dom-websocket-
 bufferedamount

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-
  [email-masked]         |  [email-masked]
     Type:  other        |      Status:  new
  technical              |   Milestone:
 Priority:  minor        |     Version:
Component:  coap-tcp-    |  Resolution:
  tls                    |
 Severity:  Active WG    |
  Document               |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/393#comment:2>
core <https://tools.ietf.org/core/>

---

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 13:24:45 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Has someone thought about the following setup, that is, will it work with
 keep-alives only?

 There is a cluster behind a load balancer. I client sets up a connection,
 is assigned to one node and starts observing. For some reason the node
 fails and through a fail-over strategy the client is handed over to
 another node. All further requests are answered transparently be the new
 node. However, the Observe relationship got lost...

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/393#comment:3>
core <https://tools.ietf.org/core/>

---

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 18:55:43 -0000

Subissue 1 is covered by the Websockets draft; close this when merged.

 Subissue 2 is covered by text in the Websockets draft; the failover
 problem described can be addressed by proper implementation of failover.
 This may however be costly, so we should have some more discussion about
 this.

 Subissue 3 is an implementation quality issue.  Just don't implement
 stream-based without some flow control.

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/393#comment:4>
core <https://tools.ietf.org/core/>

---

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 20:06:32 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

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

Comment:

 '''Moved to https://github.com/core-wg/coap-tcp-tls/issues/5'''

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-core-coap-tcp-
  [email-masked]         |  [email-masked]
     Type:  other        |      Status:  closed
  technical              |   Milestone:
 Priority:  minor        |     Version:
Component:  coap-tcp-    |  Resolution:  fixed
  tls                    |
 Severity:  Active WG    |
  Document               |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/393#comment:5>
core <https://tools.ietf.org/core/>