Subject: Re: PIM-SM receiving (S,G) Prune question

From: Vera Volfson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:00:19 -0500

>Hi,

> The errata says 
> 3.2.2 Prune 2d) should be removed, this is caught by the previous section (a) 
> 
> and it seems the right thing to do.
> 
> Than my question is - if we set the oif-timer to deletion-delay (70sec)
> (as 3.2.2 a states) and the next Prune arrives in 60 sec we should
> not reset oif-timer again and just let the oif timeout.
> 
> Is that correct?
> 

>Sorry.  I didnt get your question right the first time.

>3.2.2 Prune-list 2 (a) and 3.2.2 1 (a) say:
>"....the router lowers the entry's Oif-timer for I..."
 		^^^^^^

In that case may be the 3.2.2 Prune-list 2 (a) and 3.2.2 1(a) should
be updated and say something like:

".... the router lowers entry's Oif-timer for I unless the Oif-timer
is already less or equal [oif-deletion-delay] ..."

Thanks,
Vera
-

>This should explain it.  And yes, I think that you dont reset the timer
>and belive that is what the spec also implies.

-Shahzad Ali
ECE Grad University of Delaware.
Software Engineer, Torrent Networking Tech.

---

From: Shahzad Ali <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:17:44 -0500 (EST)

Hello,

> is already less or equal [oif-deletion-delay] ..."

OK.  So if lets say the oif-deletion-delay is 70 sec and the current
oif-timer-value is 80 sec.  Lowering it means, setting it to 70 secs, we
agree on that.  Now if the oif-timer-value is 60 secs, "lowering" it to
deletion-delay (70 sec) means letting it stay at 60 seconds and you are
pointing out that this should be stated explicitly. 

There might be some ambiguity as to what the word "lowering" means. 
I personally dont see it but I am sure this will be noted.
Thanks for bringing it up.

-Shahzad Ali

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 10:32:53 -0500 (EST)

> pointing out that this should be stated explicitly. 

Right.  I think I'm the one responsible for the current wording.
The word "lowering" is used consistently in many places in the spec,
and adding the "...unless already lower" clause to every place 
made it harder to read.

If people think it's important, then we could add somewhere a 
sentence saying that "The word "lowering a timer" is used 
throughout this document to mean setting the timer to the
minimum of its existing value and the new value mentioned
in the rule." 

-Dave