Opened 11 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
#183 closed editorial (fixed)
Check consistency of statements about RST on NON
Reported by: | cabo@… | Owned by: | draft-ietf-core-coap@… |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | |
Component: | coap | Version: | |
Severity: | Active WG Document | Keywords: | |
Cc: |
Description
Thomas Fossati notes:
apropos, section 4.3 of coap-08 seems to imply that RST can be sent in reply to a NON message, but then 4.4.4 associates RST to CON only (consistently with the usage in current Observe I-D.). To add some more entropy, the changelog says that 05->06 transition included an "Allowed RST message in reply to a NON message with unexpected token", but I can't see it anywhere in -08.
This all leaves some degree of ambiguity about whether RST is a valid response to a NON message or not.
_
Change History (2)
comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by cabo@…
comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by zach@…
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from new to closed
Done.
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
Salvatore also notes:
sections seems to imply that RST MUST be used only with confirmable messages
4.4.4. Reset (RST)
however, section 4.2 states that it MAY be used also with an Unreliable Message
4.2. Unreliable Messages