[Sis-ams] clarification needed?

[Scott Burleigh]

Ray, Timothy J. (GSFC-583.0) wrote:
>
> David,
>
>
> I like your idea of sending a 'you-are-dead' to the node whose death 
> has been imputed.
>
I agree with Tim's original post -- let's discuss in Berlin.

Scott
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Edell, David J. [mailto:David.Edell at jhuapl.edu]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2008 4:53 PM
> *To:* Ray, Timothy J. (GSFC-583.0); sis-ams at mailman.ccsds.org
> *Subject:* RE: [Sis-ams] clarification needed?
>
>  
>
> I agree that this is an area that can use some further refinement. 
>
>  
>
> My interpretation was that any receipt of a valid 'YOU_ARE_DEAD' 
> packet, regardless of status, would be to process it and cease all AMS 
> activity pending a reconnect command from the user-application.  It's 
> description in 3.1.24 and 4.2.7.4.4 seems to support this.  The 
> "I_AM_STOPPING" message I had viewed as only being valid during the 
> normal messaging mode. 
>
>  
>
> I think the usage of the "I_AM_STOPPING" message being sent to the 
> node that is inferred to be inactive should be deprecated in favor of 
> directly sending a 'YOU_ARE_DEAD' message.  Any receipt of 
> 'YOU_ARE_DEAD' from its registrar should then be interpreted as valid. 
>
>  
>
> On this topic, re-reading section 4.2.7.4.3, it does not seem to 
> explicitly state that a message should be transmitted to the 
> terminated node itself, but rather to every "other" node.  Catching up 
> on my old messages thoug, I see that you already caught this one.
>
>  
>
> - David
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* sis-ams-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org 
> [mailto:sis-ams-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] *On Behalf Of *Ray, Timothy 
> J. (GSFC-583.0)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 10, 2008 2:02 PM
> *To:* sis-ams at mailman.ccsds.org
> *Subject:* [Sis-ams] clarification needed?
>
> Dear WG members,
>
>  
>
> From an AMS node point-of-view, there are two incoming MPDUs that tell 
> it to reset to an 'unregistered' condition:
>
>         You-are-dead
>
>         i-am-stopping (with my own node-id)
>
>  
>
> I have found it difficult to determine (with confidence) whether those 
> MPDUs **always** cause the reset, or are context-dependent.  For 
> example, suppose a node receives a 'you-are-dead' but has not sent a 
> 'reconnect'? (My interpretation says "ignore it")   Conversely, 
> suppose a node sends a 'reconnect' and then receives an 
> 'i-am-stopping' (with its own node-id)?  (My interpretation says 
> "reset to unregistered condition").
>
>  
>
> My suggestion is that we discuss this in Berlin and perhaps tighten up 
> the spec.
>
>  
>
> Tim
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sis-ams mailing list
> Sis-ams at mailman.ccsds.org
> http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-ams
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/sis-ams/attachments/20080910/3ad9cca1/attachment.htm