Re: I bit in Text Request

["Robert D. Russell" <rdr@io.iol.unh.edu>]

Julian:

Three comments/questions:

1. Another small cut-and-paste error in draft 13, section 9.12.2:
   in 2 places it says "Text Request" instead of "Login Request".

2. Also in the 4 sections 9.10.2, 9.11.2, 9.12.2, and 9.13.7 (all the
   new sections about the C (Continue) Bit) the last sentence contains
   "must" -- I believe this should be "MUST" because things will break
   if this condition is not true.  For example, I believe the last
   sentence in 9.12.2 should read:
   "A Login Request with the C bit set to 1 MUST have the T bit set to 0."

3. Is there (or should there be) any requirement on the I bit in a
   Text Request (Response) that is sent because a C bit was
   set (or the F bit not set) on a received Text Response (Request).
   To illustrate this, consider the example already in draft 13 Section
   9.10.4 on page 168.  (I have added line numbers for easy reference).

   1. I->T Text SendTargets=all (F=1, TTT=0xffffffff)
   2. T->I Text <part 1> (F=0,TTT=0x12345678)
   3. I->T Text <empty> (F=1,TTT=0x12345678)
   4. T->I Text <part 2> (F=0,TTT=0x12345678)
   5. I->T Text <empty> (F=1,TTT=0x12345678)
   ...
   n. T->I Text <part 2> (F=1,TTT=0x12345678)

   Suppose the very first Text Request in line 1 has the I bit set
   to 1, so it is an immediate command.  Is there any requirement that
   the follow-up Text Request in line 3 (or 5) also have the I bit set
   to 1?  Or the other way around, if the Text Request in line 1 has
   the I bit set to 0, can the Text Request in line 3 (or 5) have
   the I bit set to 1?

   Regardless of the answer to these questions, I have another:
   suppose the Text Request in line 1 has the I bit set to 1, and the
   Text Response in line 2 has the C bit set to 1.  Can the follow-up
   Text Request in line 3 (or 5) have the I bit set to 0 or is it
   required to have the I bit set to 1 as well?

   If there is a requirement on the I bit in a sequence of Text
   Requests (Responses) like this, then I believe the standard
   should explicitly state the requirement.  If there is no
   requirement, perhaps it might also be a good idea to make
   this explicit in the draft.


Thanks

Bob Russell
InterOperability Lab
University of New Hampshire
rdr@iol.unh.edu
603-862-3774