[net2-wg] call notes 23/3/06

[henri dubois-ferriere]

> The offset is not a "send at this time," rather a "send by this time or
> give up."

Interesting -- during the call i assumed inferred that the offset was
"send by this time if possible, otherwise send as early as possible
after".




If L2+ knows when the request is submitted that it cannot send
> by that time, it can return fail. If it thought it could send by that
> time but was incorrect, it can signal a stopped().
>
> > My proposal is the following: If you want to ADD to SP, you have to
> > implement that functionality within one of the two SP frameworks and
> > illustrate its utility before the addition is considered.
>
> I'm thinking of doing a clean rewrite. I'm not sure if that will result
> in something that's just of academic interest or something whose
> efficiency and expressiveness is on par with the Berkeley and Moteiv
> implementations, but I'll never know until I try. It seems like this is
> just such an important problem in sensornets that I should get my hands
> a bit dirty to understand it better from a practical (read:
> implementation) standpoint.
>
> That being said, I agree that the utility of the timeout should be
> heavily considered and evaluated before being included in a TEP
> interface. That's why I tried to present it as just a summary of a
> conversation and some thoughts that I'd been having. It's far from a
> definite proposal, even. We had 10 minutes to go, and I thought people
> might be interested in talking a bit about some of these tradeoffs.
>
> But I can also flip around and say that I don't think the utility of
> urgent has at all been illustrated (as far as I can tell), so we should
> cut it. :)
>
> Phil
>
>
>