Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL61] Remove initial wait

Agree in principle but suggested text change is wrong.

text should read:

    When ready to begin probing, the host should then wait for a random
    time interval selected uniformly in the range 0 to (PROBE_MAX - PROBE_MIN)
    seconds, and should then send NUM_PROBES probe packets, spaced
    randomly, PROBE_MIN to PROBE_MAX seconds apart.

Alternatively use PROBE_MIN and PROBE_RANGE:

    When ready to begin probing, the host should then wait for a random
    time interval selected uniformly in the range 0 to PROBE_RANGE
    seconds, and should then send NUM_PROBES probe packets, spaced
    randomly, PROBE_MIN to (PROBE_MIN + PROBE_RANGE) seconds apart.

Philip

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erik Guttman" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:07 PM
Subject: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL61] Remove initial wait


> Please post discussion of this issue to the mailing list over the 
> next two weeks
> ending May 18, 2004.  In order to accept this issued, we will need a strong WG
> consensus given that this is very late in the process.
> 
> Please see http://www.drizzle.org/~aboba/ZEROCONF/issues.html for a list of
> current issues and their status.
> 
> [LL61]
> 
> Description of Issue: Remove initial wait
> Submitter Name:                 Stuart Cheshire
> Submitter Email Address:        [email protected]
> Date first submitted:           04 May 04
> Reference: LL12
> Comment Type ['t'ech|'e'dit]: t
> Prio ['S' Must|1 should|2 may]: S
> Section: 2.2.1
> Rationale/Explanation:
> Lengthy Description:
> 
> [Stuart]
> 
> >    When ready to begin probing, the host should then wait for a random
> >    time interval selected uniformly in the range PROBE_MIN to PROBE_MAX
> >    seconds, and should then send NUM_PROBES probe packets, spaced
> >    randomly, PROBE_MIN to PROBE_MAX seconds apart.
> 
> Why "wait for a random time interval selected uniformly in the range
> PROBE_MIN to PROBE_MAX"? What's the benefit of enforcing an initial
> one-second delay? It just slows things down.
> 
> [Erik]
> 
> This delay was intended to stop a set of hosts from beginning at the
> same time in a 'LAN power up' situation.  This text has passed all
> reviews and numerous WG issues to revise and hone it.
> 
> [Stuart]
> 
> I was not asking about the [0,1] random interval. That's been there since
> draft-05.
> 
> I was asking about why it is now 1 + [0,1]. What's the extra fixed
> one-second delay for? What is achieved by making the process uniformly
> take a second longer than it should?
> 
> [Erik]
> 
>      Hmm.  Reviewing all records, I can't see how this entered the doc.
>      I don't have time for archeology to find out when it entered.  I
>      don't see why waiting an extra second helps, except to wait for
>      network infrastructure to come up (see ll12).
> 
> Requested Change:
> 
> Text was:
> 
>     When ready to begin probing, the host should then wait for a random
>     time interval selected uniformly in the range PROBE_MIN to PROBE_MAX
>     seconds, and should then send NUM_PROBES probe packets, spaced
>     randomly, PROBE_MIN to PROBE_MAX seconds apart.
> 
> Text becomes:
> 
>     When ready to begin probing, the host should send NUM_PROBES probe
>     packets, spaced randomly, PROBE_MIN to PROBE_MAX seconds apart.
>