[Tinyos-devel] [Tinyos Core WG] TEP105: LowPowerListeningDutyCycles

[Andreas Koepke]

To settle this: we stick to the PacketAcknowledgements interface to 
tunnel the Reliable stuff through the AM layer.

The original problem was the cancel optimization. I strongly dislike 
side effects of a cancel that returns FAIL. Side effects are evil.

I think that cancel is an optimization -- it is not necessary to have 
the semantics "this packet will not arrive for sure". An "I don't care 
anymore that this packet arrives" seems much more natural to me.

Andreas Koepke:
> 
> David Moss:
>> ENOACK  :)
> 
> Ok ;-)
> 
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: tinyos-devel-bounces at millennium.berkeley.edu
>> [mailto:tinyos-devel-bounces at millennium.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Philip
>> Levis
>> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 10:32 AM
>> To: Andreas Koepke
>> Cc: tinyos-devel at millennium.berkeley.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Tinyos-devel] [Tinyos Core WG] TEP105:
>> LowPowerListeningDutyCycles
>>
>>
>> On May 19, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Andreas Koepke wrote:
>>
>>> Should we go ahead and define such an interface?
>> The issue here is distinguishing failure cases. I'm leery of defining  
>> and interface where FAIL means "not acked," because it does not let  
>> the higher layer distinguish "I am broken" from "sure, retry." E.g.,  
>> CTP would respond very different, with respect to retries and its link  
>> estimation, between the lower stack failing and a packet not being  
>> acked.
>>
>> Phil
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tinyos-devel mailing list
>> Tinyos-devel at millennium.berkeley.edu
>> https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-devel
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tinyos-devel mailing list
> Tinyos-devel at millennium.berkeley.edu
> https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-devel