Subject: RE: NOTIFICATION message error handling.

From: "Natale, Jonathan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:00:21 -0400

I see your point, but your text seems too wordy.

What about:
"If a speaker receives a NOTIFICATION message, and there is an error in that
>    message, there is unfortunately no means of reporting this error via
>    a subsequent NOTIFICATION message."

Since throughout the doc "speaker" seems to mean local peer and "peer" seems
to mean remote peer.  This may be another area where consistency/
definitions would make the doc more readable/workable.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ignas Bagdonas [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 1:28 PM
To: Natale, Jonathan
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: NOTIFICATION message error handling.

,

[This is section 6.4]

> Please change"
> "If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and there is an error in that
>    message, there is unfortunately no means of reporting this error via
>    a subsequent NOTIFICATION message."
>
> To:
> "If a peer receives a NOTIFICATION message, and there is an error in that
>    message, there is unfortunately no means of reporting this error via
>    a subsequent NOTIFICATION message."

I would tend to disagree - the proposed change reverses the meaning of the
statement. It is remote peer that sends us malformed NOTIFICATION and
cannot be informed about that.

I would suggest the following text instead:

   All errors detected while processing the NOTIFICATION message cannot be
   indicated by sending subsequent NOTIFICATION message back to
   originating peer, therefore there is no means of reporting NOTIFICATION
   message processing errors. Any error, such as an unrecognized
   Error Code or Error Subcode, should be noticed, logged locally, and
   brought to the attention of the administration of the peer that has
   sent the message. The means to do this, however, lies outside the scope
   of this document.

Ignas

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:30:37 -0700

Jonathan,

> definitions would make the doc more readable/workable.

How about the following:

    If a peer sends a NOTIFICATION message, and the receiver of the
    message detects an error in that message, the receiver can not 
    use a NOTIFICATION message to report this error back to the peer.

Yakov.

---

From: Ignas Bagdonas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 20:46:43 +0200 (GMT)

,

>     use a NOTIFICATION message to report this error back to the peer.

Fine with me - simple and clear

Ignas