Re: Issue 59: Editorial comments from Tero (was: Comments of draft-ietf-mobike-protocol-04.txt)

[email protected] wrote:

>>In section 3.2. the second example should probably clarify that
>>the exchange in step 3 is successful, i.e. the responder do
>>respond to that in this example protocol run (as can be seen from
>>the return packet sent by the responder, but the text below it
>>gives feeling that it failed ("initiator gives up")).
>>
>>Perhaps there should also be example where that exchange is not
>>successful.
>>    
>>
>
>Hmm... the example was written by Jari, but I suspect the intention
>was that step 3 is not successful (the initiator doesn't receive a
>reply -- but then step 4 is wrong, as the initiator has to continue
>retransmitting the first request).
>
>Jari, could you clarify?
>  
>
It was indeed intention that the return packet in step 3
would be lost. We forgot to draw this in the flow, however.
I have used something like

                                            REQ
                  ------------------------------------------------>
                                            RESP
                                 /----------------------------------

elsewhere. But the real question is I guess step 4
correctness. Yes, I actually thought that we could
switch to another request, but as you point out,
this is incorrect. Hmm... this means that we can't
piggyback the RR test/cookie2 all of a sudden. Oh
well, that means another roundtrip in this case.
Retransmit the step 3 packet to a different address,
then do an RR test separately.

--Jari