[Sis-ams] inconsistency in imputed death of node?

[Scott Burleigh]

Ray, Timothy J. (GSFC-583.0) wrote:
>
> Dear WG members,
>
>  
>
> Inconsistency?
>
>  
>
> 4.2.6.4.5 says that a node can receive an i-am-stopping message that 
> refers to itself (registrar imputes death of the node).   4.2.7.4.3 
> says that in case of imputed death of a node, that the registrar sends 
> an i-am-stopping message to every other node (when I read this 
> section, I took it to mean "but not the node whose death has been 
> imputed").
>
>  
>
> By the way, I think it makes sense to have the registrar send an 
> 'i-am-stopping' message to a node that it thinks is dead (but may not 
> be).  So I would suggest modifying section 4.2.7.4.3 to match 4.2.6.4.5.
>
I agree, Tim.  I'll modify the spec (unless somebody objects): in the 
first sentence of 4.2.7.4.3 the word "other" will be removed and the 
words "(including the terminated node itself, in case it doesn't realize 
that its termination has been imputed)" will be inserted after "in its 
cell".

Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-ams/attachments/20080822/df48220e/attachment.htm