That would work for me. Jari
Yoshihiro Ohba kirjoitti: > Let me start a new thread on this subject. > > I remember a ZigBee member asked if explicit error indication can be > sent by a PRE when a PANA message cannot be relayed for some reasons > (buffer shortage, no route to PAA, etc.). I think it would be useful > to add such a feature if there is little impact to RFC 5191 to support > the feature, as it could reduce unnecessarily retransmissions of PCIs > from PaCs. Reduce unnecessarily retransmissions may be good for > resource constrained networks such as ZigBee. > > Explicit error indication can be by means of a new PANA message or a > new Result-Code. > > Processing explicit error indication is like handling > exceptions/interruptions. So considerations would be necessarily > not to interfere with the PANA sequence number processing rule. > Especially this would be the case where an error indication is > protected by a PANA SA. I would expect that we don't need to support > protected error indication as it would require a complex sequence > number processing rule such as a separate sequence number space > dedicated to error indications. > > IMHO, a new PANA message (e.g., PANA-Error-Indication) > carrying sequence number of zero (0) may be simple, something like this: > > PaC PRE > ---> PCI > <--- PEI[Error-Code="Relay-failed"] // seqno=0 > > PEI message is unprotected and it can be used only as a hint. > > Regards, > Yoshihiro Ohba > > (2011/05/26 13:58), Jari Arkko wrote: > >> Yoshihiro, >> >> >>> Let me give some time to analyze the impact of this recommendation. >>> >>> >> Ok. I' not claiming that my solution is necessarily the way forward, but >> I am worried about the issue. >> >> Jari >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ Pana mailing list Pana@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
