SAR

Hi to all.

I started to work with kannel recently, so excuse me for my ignorance, if
I'm wrong.
I'm refering to "SAR" thread one month ago.

Denzel wrote on Nov. 13.:
"Here's a SAR patch we made ( diffrent to Igore's). We tested this with =
an earlier CVS ( may be in sync with gateway1.2.0 ). Nack's are =
implemented.  And we had a problem with igore's patch, cause sometimes =
the nacks failed ."

Igor wrote on Nov. 13.:
"Nack reaction was not implemented in early version of sar.patch. But
version
that's come to cvs has this feature."

Now I'm looking on both versions: one with Denzel's patch and the one from
CVS.
What I see is that in CVS version there is implemented only response to NACK
and not a NACK request. In another words, CVS Kannel doesn't take care about
lost wtp segments and never sends NACK to the sender, but only ACK.
This can be seen in following code:

wtp_resp.c line 722:

        if (orig_event->u.RcvSegInvoke.gtr == 1) { /* Need to acknowledge */
            e = wtp_pack_sar_ack(ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, machine->tid,
machine->addr_tuple,
                                 orig_event->u.RcvSegInvoke.psn);
            dispatch_to_wdp(e);
        }

and when receives incomplete packet it just reports debug info:

wtp_resp.c line 793:
    for (i = 1; i <= last_psn; i++) {
        if ((sar_info = list_search(machine->sar_info, &i,
is_wanted_sar_data)) != NULL) {
            octstr_append(e->u.RcvInvoke.user_data,sar_info->sar_data);
        } else {
            debug("wap.wtp", 0, "Packet with psn %d not found", i);
            return e;
        }
    }

In Denzel's implementation it seems to be solved correctly
(wtp_check_segments).

Igor, can you confirm that, so I should use Danzel's patch instead of CVS.
Do you plan to implement that also?
Maybe some part from Denzel's patch can be integrated to CVS?

Thanks
Damir Salantic