Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Love Open Relay Group/ack - Revision history

Satomi Ahn at 13:18, 7 May 2011

2011-05-07T13:18:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:18, 7 May 2011
Line 19:		Line 19:

	See [[llRegionSayTo]].		See [[llRegionSayTo]].
			--[[User:Satomi Ahn\|Satomi Ahn]] 06:18, 7 May 2011 (PDT)

Satomi Ahn: /* Probably to be deprecated */ new section

2011-05-07T13:18:10Z

Probably to be deprecated: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:18, 7 May 2011
Line 15:		Line 15:
	While it is implied that only ok and ko responses are to be muted, I think it should be clearly stated whether making the relay quiet is for all responses or just the ok/ko pair. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 13:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)		While it is implied that only ok and ko responses are to be muted, I think it should be clearly stated whether making the relay quiet is for all responses or just the ok/ko pair. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 13:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
	:It is already explicitly stated: « quiet: "ok" and "ko" acknowledgements are not sent. » --[[User:Satomi Ahn\|Satomi Ahn]] 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)		:It is already explicitly stated: « quiet: "ok" and "ko" acknowledgements are not sent. » --[[User:Satomi Ahn\|Satomi Ahn]] 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

			== Probably to be deprecated ==

			See [[llRegionSayTo]].

Satomi Ahn: moved Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Life Relay/ORG ack to Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Love Open Relay Group/ack: TPV Policy name change for RLV

2010-10-21T13:47:46Z

moved Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Life Relay/ORG ack to Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Love Open Relay Group/ack: TPV Policy name change for RLV

← Older revision	Revision as of 06:47, 21 October 2010
(No difference)

Satomi Ahn at 21:13, 20 October 2010

2010-10-20T21:13:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:13, 20 October 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	As written, this command violates the requirements listed in the ORG requirements page for every command to be either "ok"ed or "ko"ed. I certainly see the value in this, but either the requirements need to be changed or this command cannot work. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)		As written, this command violates the requirements listed in the ORG requirements page for every command to be either "ok"ed or "ko"ed. I certainly see the value in this, but either the requirements need to be changed or this command cannot work. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
			:For this point:
			:[14:07] Satomi Ahn: considering your first remark: I believe it is implicit that x-tensions can override some of the requirements of the core specification. The important thing being that we know what to expect.
			:[14:07] Satomi Ahn: (maybe it can be explained better in the core requirements?)
			:[14:08] Chloe1982 Constantine: yeah.. perhaps... and I have no problem with it overriding the core spec.. I just think it needs to be explicit that that is what it is doing
			:--> ok the core spec should be more precise on this point.
			:--[[User:Satomi Ahn\|Satomi Ahn]] 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

	It is not clear whether this command is intended to apply to the relay as a whole or only to the commands from the object sending the ''!x-ack'' I would assume it is the latter, but would like to see that clarified. I'd be opposed to the global interpretation since one toy could affect the way others work. Note, this comment is motivated from the multiple-controlling object point of view. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)		It is not clear whether this command is intended to apply to the relay as a whole or only to the commands from the object sending the ''!x-ack'' I would assume it is the latter, but would like to see that clarified. I'd be opposed to the global interpretation since one toy could affect the way others work. Note, this comment is motivated from the multiple-controlling object point of view. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
			:Of course, it only concerns the device issuing !x-ack. I add a remark in the spec. --[[User:Satomi Ahn\|Satomi Ahn]] 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

	What should the relay state, with respect to !x-ack be on relog? Should the !x-ack state (quiet or verbose) still be in force or should it revert to the default behavior of verbose? --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)		What should the relay state, with respect to !x-ack be on relog? Should the !x-ack state (quiet or verbose) still be in force or should it revert to the default behavior of verbose? --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
			:I believe it should stay as it was. Do you see a reason why it would be better to reset it? --[[User:Satomi Ahn\|Satomi Ahn]] 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

	While it is implied that only ok and ko responses are to be muted, I think it should be clearly stated whether making the relay quiet is for all responses or just the ok/ko pair. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 13:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)		While it is implied that only ok and ko responses are to be muted, I think it should be clearly stated whether making the relay quiet is for all responses or just the ok/ko pair. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 13:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
			:It is already explicitly stated: « quiet: "ok" and "ko" acknowledgements are not sent. » --[[User:Satomi Ahn\|Satomi Ahn]] 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Chloe1982 Constantine at 13:30, 6 August 2010

2010-08-06T13:30:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:30, 6 August 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:

	What should the relay state, with respect to !x-ack be on relog? Should the !x-ack state (quiet or verbose) still be in force or should it revert to the default behavior of verbose? --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)		What should the relay state, with respect to !x-ack be on relog? Should the !x-ack state (quiet or verbose) still be in force or should it revert to the default behavior of verbose? --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

			While it is implied that only ok and ko responses are to be muted, I think it should be clearly stated whether making the relay quiet is for all responses or just the ok/ko pair. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 13:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Chloe1982 Constantine at 16:53, 5 August 2010

2010-08-05T16:53:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:53, 5 August 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:

	It is not clear whether this command is intended to apply to the relay as a whole or only to the commands from the object sending the ''!x-ack'' I would assume it is the latter, but would like to see that clarified. I'd be opposed to the global interpretation since one toy could affect the way others work. Note, this comment is motivated from the multiple-controlling object point of view. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)		It is not clear whether this command is intended to apply to the relay as a whole or only to the commands from the object sending the ''!x-ack'' I would assume it is the latter, but would like to see that clarified. I'd be opposed to the global interpretation since one toy could affect the way others work. Note, this comment is motivated from the multiple-controlling object point of view. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

			What should the relay state, with respect to !x-ack be on relog? Should the !x-ack state (quiet or verbose) still be in force or should it revert to the default behavior of verbose? --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Chloe1982 Constantine at 15:52, 5 August 2010

2010-08-05T15:52:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:52, 5 August 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	As written, this command violates the requirements listed in the ORG requirements page for every command to be either "ok"ed or "ko"ed. I certainly see the value in this, but either the requirements need to be changed or this command cannot work. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)		As written, this command violates the requirements listed in the ORG requirements page for every command to be either "ok"ed or "ko"ed. I certainly see the value in this, but either the requirements need to be changed or this command cannot work. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

			It is not clear whether this command is intended to apply to the relay as a whole or only to the commands from the object sending the ''!x-ack'' I would assume it is the latter, but would like to see that clarified. I'd be opposed to the global interpretation since one toy could affect the way others work. Note, this comment is motivated from the multiple-controlling object point of view. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine\|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Chloe1982 Constantine: Created page with 'As written, this command violates the requirements listed in the ORG requirements page for every command to be either "ok"ed or "ko"ed. I certainly see the value in this, but eit...'

2010-08-05T15:46:16Z

Created page with 'As written, this command violates the requirements listed in the ORG requirements page for every command to be either "ok"ed or "ko"ed. I certainly see the value in this, but eit...'

New page

As written, this command violates the requirements listed in the ORG requirements page for every command to be either "ok"ed or "ko"ed. I certainly see the value in this, but either the requirements need to be changed or this command cannot work. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 15:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)