Just one point while working on the text:
On 03/05/2017 14:32, Martin Thomson wrote:
...
> On 3 May 2017 at 11:58, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I must say I hadn't thought of RTT as an issue, because we tend to assume
>> that the timescale for an autonomic action will be far greater than
>> an RTT, so timeouts will be milliseconds to seconds, and RTTs within
>> the autonomic domain will be sub-millisecond in many cases.
>
> Ahh, I always assume that machines work faster than the network, so
> the opposite really..
>
>> Are you suggesting we should be able to reduce the timeout as well?
>
> Can't it already do that? I mean, it can't account for any time
> already spent waiting, but it could include the value 0, which means
> don't wait any more when you receive this (a nonsensical thing here,
> but it demonstrates that a reduction is possible).
Actually it's redundant. If the peer replies with another Negotiation
message we keep going; if it replies with a Negotiation End message
we're done anyway. So there's never anything to gain by shortening
the timeout that I can see.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
