Hi Michael,
I agree with you that there is a hole when subsequent store requests have the same storage_time value. But should every equality case be responded with a TOO-OLD error? If there is only one writer to the data object, it seems like a repetition, and it makes sense to discard it like you said. Whereas if there are more than one writers to the data object, I am not sure what is expected. Do we have to consider the multi-writer case? BR Lingli 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 Michael Chen 发送时间: 2013年7月5日 1:52 收件人: [email protected] 主题: [P2PSIP] storage_time check wording inconsistency Hi, In the current p2psip-base-26, all descriptions of storage_time check (e.g 7.4.1.1 and 13.5.3) states that a Store request must satisfy condition: new_item->storage_time > existing_item->storage_time However, these two places have wordings to the contrary in terms of equality in the above comparison: Section 7. Data Storage Protocol storage_time ... Any attempt to store a data value with a storage time before that of a value already stored at this location MUST generate a Error_Data_Too_Old error. Section 6.3.3.1 Error_Data_Too_Old: A store cannot be completed because the storage_time precedes the existing value. The word "before" must be changed to "older than or equal to", and the word "precedes" must be changed to "is older than or equal to". Thanks --Michael
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
