Subject: Re: Washington Issue 14 - Errors when parsing

From: Prashant Jain <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 00:05:13 +0530

Harpreet Singh Anand <[email-masked]> on 11/17/99 06:50:08 PM

Please respond to [email-masked]

To:   [email-masked]
cc:    (bcc: Prashant Jain/HSS)

Subject:  Re: Washington Issue 14 - Errors when parsing

Even though we add new error codes in the errors list ,  ABNF grammar in v12
does not allow MG or MGC to send error messages to the entity who has generated
the Response,  if it finds error (Syntax or semantics) in a particular
TransactionReply.

Regards,

Prashant Jain

Hello Brian,

What should be the action on receiving an indication of an error in
TransactionReply ? Should the receiver continue other transactions or
"disconnect" ?

We can add one more error code:

545 - Syntax Error in Transaction Pending

There can be other error conditions like, more command replies in
TransactionReply then in the corresponding command request.

Regards,
Harpreet

Brian Rosen wrote:

>  Hello Brian,
> >
> > 1. Should the error messages be sent if there is a syntax error in
> > TransactionReply ?
> We clearly need new error messages for this
>
> > 2. If yes, then what should be the handling on receiving
> > error message for a
> > TransactionReply ?
> These errors are pretty serious.  They indicate a programming
> error (conceivably could be a provisioning error not caught
> by someone's code).  It is unlikely that recovery is possible.
> If you sent a syntax error once, you will do it again.
>
> > 3. If there is a semantic error in the TransactionReply, say the
> > TransactionReply does not have all the command responses or say if the
> > termination Id in the reply does not match the termination id
> > in the command
> > (considering the case when termination id is always sent in
> > the reply), then
> > what should the receiver of TransactionReply do ?
> More new error messages
>
> > I feel on receiving a erroneous TransactionReply, the
> > receiver should reject the
> > reply (without sending any response message) and behave as if
> > it did not receive
> > any reply. That is, it would retransmit the Transaction after timeout.
> That would be, IMO, a poor choice.  You have close to 100%
> probability you would simply get the same reply, or you
> would get a "illegal duplicate request" (yet another new message)
>
> Let' see, we have:
> 540

û Syntax Error in Transaction Reply
> 541 

û TransactionIDs in Reply do not match Request
> 542 - Missing command in Transaction Reply
> 543 - Illegal Duplicate Transaction Request
> 544 - Illegal Duplicate Transaction Reply
>
> Brian

--

Regards,
Harpreet

_________________________________
Harpreet Singh Anand
Ficon Technology
E-mail :  mailto:[email-masked]
Web    :  http://www.ficon-tech.com