RE: [EFM] Should There Be A Sequence Number In Variable Request/R esp onse PDUs?
agree, calling it sequence number may mislead people to think it has to be
incremented in certain ways, or may imply a state of connection. I like your
idea of calling it a correlater.
Further, I agree that such a field should be set by the
requester to any value it pleases and the responder should simply return it
untouched, and without using the value in any way.
least the responses contain the information on which values are being
returned, so to some extent one can simply use that as a kind of
However, I agree that a correlator field might well be useful to
correlate requests and responses, but I'd recommend calling it a correlator
rather than a sequence number, and avoid any language requiring it to be
incremented in each request etc. Simply say that the correlator from the
variable request PDU should be returned in each resulting variable response
PDU - then, anyone who wanted to, could set it to a unique value, and
anyone else could just set it to zero and ignore it when
anyone else have an opinion?
Variable Request and
Response PDUs don't have a sequence number field.
If one is allowed to send multiple outstanding
Variable Requests, then how is to
match a response to its corresponding request? Should not we introduce a sequence
number? Sure, to some extent one could match
them by looking at what variables are included, but it's not a sure
If the intention is not
to allow more than one Variable Request at a time, which I think is
reasonable in order to keep the OAM operation simple, then a note to that
effect in the standard would be nice.
Your comments are
welcome and appreciated.