On the sponsor
ballot I made the following comment..
"In the MAC service primitive
definitions, the CREATE_CONNECTION primitives are replicated as the
CHANGE_CONNECTION primitives with the following declaration: "The
semantics and effect of receipt
of these primitives are the same as for
the corresponding CREATE
primitives, except that a new CID is not
generated."
The
CREATE_CONNECTION.request does not include a CID parameter, since the
response provides the CID,
as provisioned by the MAC at the time of
creation. All that is in the parameter set of the request is a set of
connection parameters.
Thus on receipt of a
CHANGE_CONNECTION.request, with a new set of connection parameters, the MAC
somehow has to use the new parameter set to indentify the CID that is
being changed. This is clearly impossible
if the parameters do not
sufficiently match. The CHANGE_CONNECTION.request must include a
CID."
With the loosely
define remedy:
"Write a
definition of the MAC_CHANGE_CONNECTION.request primitive that by
duplication of or reference
to the MAC_CREATE_CONNECTION.request
primitive that defines it to be the same as the
MAC_CREATE_CONNECTION.request primitive with the exception that an
additional paramater 'CID' is included,
to indicate to the MAC which CID
is being changed."
This was
rejected for lack of a specific remedy. I wasn't able to be around for the
discussion, so I have no sense as to whether the group agreed with the
comment or whether some fault in my analysis was
identified.
So before I rush
off and write specific text, I'd like to know if people think the comment is
valid.
Thanks,
DJ