Ben, I'm sorry about letting this slip through without a response.
Whether there is a grace period for the Listing Server is determined by a regulator, but it probably makes sense to allow for that parameter in the protocol. The question is, can the current grace-period parameter be applied to both the Database and the Listing Server? or should we add another parameter to maintain flexibility? Thoughts? -vince On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Ben Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > Vince, > > This is my first post to the PAWS list (and indeed any IETF draft) so > please let me know if I'm not following procedure. > > I'm glad draft 04 covers database discovery in more detail. I'm still > curious about the Error Handling section. > > I understand a grace period is useful and necessary when no databases are > contactable by the Device for a short period. > > Does this also handle the scenario of the Device losing contact with the > regulatory domain's Listing Server? Should Devices trying to update their > database entry from a Listing Server which has gone away have a grace > period/hold timer too? Or does the first failed attempt cause complete > shutdown of the Device? > > Thanks > Ben > > >
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
