Opened 10 years ago

Closed 10 years ago

#225 closed editorial (fixed)

Explain why it is not always possible to react to a RST that is in reply to a NON

Reported by: cabo@… Owned by: draft-ietf-core-observe@…
Priority: minor Milestone: post-WGLC-1
Component: observe Version: observe-05
Severity: In WG Last Call Keywords:


Cullen Jennings notes (msg03073e):

Last paragraph of section 4.2 says MAY remove but I think this needs to be a MUST remove.


No, this is indeed intended to be MAY.
We want to make the need to store state for a NON optional.
A sender of a NON message may discard the MID state for that message whenever it wants.
That may make acting on a RST to that MID impossible.
Hence MAY.

-> change the wording to make it clearer that we expect (as a quality of implementation issue) a server that still happens to have the state to also react to the RST.

Change History (2)

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by cabo@…

Text proposal:

Add at the end of 4.2:

(Implementation note: This "MAY" is a relaxation for constrained
implementations. The expectation is, where a server still has the
state available that is needed to map the RST to an observation
relationship, it will indeed remove the client from the list of

comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by hartke@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

Fixed in [975]:

Closes #225: Done in observe-07

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.