wipcheck and wipexpire

Katsuhiro Kondou kondou at nec.co.jp
Mon May 15 22:49:39 UTC 2000

In article <200005151747.KAA44783 at pathlink.net>,
	kachun at pathlink.com (Kachun Lee) wrote;

} If different behavior was intended for offered channel between wipcheck and 
} wipexpire, I think it should be the inverted, i.e. negative for the offered 
} channel and positive for others. The logic is that if the offered channel send 
} another CHECK for the same msgid, it must have lost the previous SENDIT 
} response, so it should be responsed with SENDIT again. And others should always 
} response with RESEND as long as the msgid is in WIP.

I agree in that case, but I think it depends on peer.

} the weekend. I can post the patch (to inn-patch?) after I recheck some numbers 
} and if someone kind enough to confirm that I have not miss some purpose about 
} wipcheck/wipexpire.

I'd like to see the patch.
Katsuhiro Kondou

More information about the inn-workers mailing list