Ok, good to know.
Thanks
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Igor Ivoilov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: mercoled� 17 settembre 2003 17.29
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: SAR well tested?
>
>
> You' are right. NACK is not imlemented for receiption. I did not
> implement it yet just
> because I never met a problem with that and have other very urgent stuff.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marco Fassiotto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 8:48 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: SAR well tested?
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> > I started to look into the kannel code a few days ago (very few)
> > and I am currently following the SAR implementation, finding a
> > few things that need clarification (beside being a newbie on
> > kannel I also happen to be a newbie on WAP).
> > However, here is the question regarding the WTP responder.
> > On reception of a SARed transaction, process_sar_transaction()
> > adds the first invoke and the following segm-invokes to the
> > list of received blocks using add_sar_transaction().
> > When it is time to ACK/NAK a group (GTR=1), there is no check for a
> > complete reception of all blocks in a group, and it is always
> > built an ACK packet despite the fact that one of them may have been
> > lost.
> > Sending a segmented result does not seem to suffer of the same
> > problem as the state machine is prepared to receive a NAK and to
> > resent the lost blocks.
> > I am sure I am missing something and hope that someone can help
> > shed some light.
> > Thanks
> > Marco
> >
> >
> >
