none
[MS-PNRP] 3.1.5.4 Receiving an ACK Message RRS feed

  • Question

  • 3.1.5.4 Receiving an ACK Message
    When an ACK message is received, the receiving node MUST attempt to match the Acked Message ID field with the Message ID of an entry in the Pending List. If a match is not found, the message MUST be silently discarded with no further action.
    Alternatively, if a match is found, the entry in the Pending List MUST be removed.

    This totally ignores the N Flag which can be set on the ACK message as a response to a FLOOD message.

    I'd propose to add a section which states, the PNRPID, which is accessible via the FLOOD message the Pending List, should be removed from the Route Entry Cache, if the ACK response has the N bit set.

    Sunday, January 29, 2012 11:58 AM

Answers

  • Hi Msosilover

    We welcome all community feedback on the Microsoft-produced specifications and carefully consider all suggestions in a process that includes first analyzing that feedback and then filing a formal request with the document owner. Our post was an acknowledgment to you that we did so. But, we also wanted to confirm that we interpreted your post correctly: it was feedback only; you were not actively blocked in your implementation. From your last post, we still believe that is true. Accordingly, we thank you for your suggestion and it is being processed.

    Thanks


    Tarun Chopra | Escalation Engineer | Open Specifications Support Team

    Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:26 AM

All replies

  • Hi msosilover,

    Thank you for your question.  A colleague will contact you to work on this issue.

    Regards,
    Mark Miller
    Escalation Engineer
    US-CSS DSC PROTOCOL TEAM

    Sunday, January 29, 2012 6:16 PM
  • Hi Msosilover

     

    I will assist you and analyze the proposed modification.

     

    Thanks


    Tarun Chopra | Escalation Engineer | Open Specifications Support Team
    Monday, January 30, 2012 6:28 PM
  • Hi Msosilover

    Thank you for bringing this to our attention, I have passed the feedback to the document owner for review. We are treating your report as feedback on the document, in which case we’ll close this issue by filing the feedback. However, if you are blocked or requiring a response, please let us know so that we have shared expectations.

    Thanks


    Tarun Chopra | Escalation Engineer | Open Specifications Support Team
    Thursday, February 2, 2012 4:22 PM
  • Of course I'd prefer if I was told whether my assumption was correct and if the documentation will see a correction, but well, won't be my first correction getting lost in the process.

    But I guess you are not making the rules either,  so proceed as as you have to.

     

    Sunday, February 5, 2012 12:03 AM
  • Hi Msosilover

    We welcome all community feedback on the Microsoft-produced specifications and carefully consider all suggestions in a process that includes first analyzing that feedback and then filing a formal request with the document owner. Our post was an acknowledgment to you that we did so. But, we also wanted to confirm that we interpreted your post correctly: it was feedback only; you were not actively blocked in your implementation. From your last post, we still believe that is true. Accordingly, we thank you for your suggestion and it is being processed.

    Thanks


    Tarun Chopra | Escalation Engineer | Open Specifications Support Team

    Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:26 AM