Re: [802.21] Ad-hoc on ES/CS discussion
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:29:17AM -0800, Gupta, Vivek G wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> > Yoshihiro Ohba
> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 12:27 PM
> > To: Gupta, Vivek G
> > Cc: Yoshihiro Ohba; Eunah Kim; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> > Subject: Re: [802.21] Ad-hoc on ES/CS discussion
> >
> <clip>
> >
> > If the tranport is UDP, ACK is needed at MIHF level.
> >
> [Vivek G Gupta]
> Nope.
> You probably need some kind of a protocol for reliable transport here
> which is outside the scope of MIH message passing.
> Just one ACK is not gonna solve that problem.
> What happens if the ACK itself is lost?
In case the ACK itself is lost, the message which requested the ACK
will be simply retransmitted. Of course we are not going to define a
full-fledged reliable transport within the MIH protocol.
Even if we consider L2 transport over a new Ethernet type, we would
face the same problem of "unnecessary retransmission of request that
has been received but taking time to process" if we don't have ACK in
the MIH protocol.
Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba
>
>
>
> > Regards,
> > Yoshihiro Ohba
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > -Vivek
> > >
>