Receiver Stall Prevention via Dynamic Response Delay
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
The existing receiver technologies face compatibility issues with both legacy and updated transmitters due to the removal of maximum response delay time in locality checks, leading to customer frustration and system stalls, as updated transmitters lack a time-based locality check, causing them to stall indefinitely.
Innovation Solution
The receiver selects between a valid response with a short delay and an invalid response with a longer delay to satisfy legacy transmitters while forcing updated transmitters to retry the challenge response procedure, ensuring compatibility and preventing stalls.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If the receiver provides a valid response with short delay time, then compatibility with legacy transmitters is maintained, but updated transmitters without time-based locality check will stall indefinitely
Solution Approach 1:
The receiver dynamically adjusts its response strategy based on transmitter type. It monitors whether the transmitter is legacy (requiring short response delay) or updated (without time-based locality check) and switches between providing valid responses with short delay or invalid responses with long delay accordingly, preventing indefinite stalls while maintaining legacy compatibility
Solution Approach 2:
The receiver changes the parameters of its response (validity and delay time) based on the detected transmitter type. For legacy transmitters, it provides valid responses with short delay; for updated transmitters, it provides invalid responses with long delay, thereby preventing stalls without compromising legacy compatibility
2Reliability
If the receiver provides an invalid response with long delay time, then updated transmitters are forced to retry and avoid stalls, but legacy transmitters will determine locality check failure and not provide content
Solution Approach 1:
The receiver dynamically switches between response strategies based on transmitter type detection. When an updated transmitter is detected (one without time-based locality check), the receiver provides invalid responses with long delay to force retries and prevent stalls. When a legacy transmitter is detected, it switches to providing valid responses with short delay
Solution Approach 2:
The receiver changes response parameters (validity and delay) based on transmitter type. Invalid responses with long delay are used specifically for updated transmitters to prevent stalls, while valid responses with short delay are used for legacy transmitters to ensure compatibility
3Adaptability or versatility
If the transmitter removes maximum response delay time requirement, then the locality check is no longer needed for updated systems, but updated transmitters will stall indefinitely without a timeout mechanism
Solution Approach 1:
The receiver takes preliminary anti-action by providing invalid responses with long delay before the updated transmitter can stall indefinitely. This preemptive strategy forces the transmitter to retry the challenge-response procedure, preventing the stall condition from occurring in the first place
Solution Approach 2:
The receiver converts the potential harm of indefinite stalling into a beneficial retry mechanism by providing invalid responses with long delay. This causes the transmitter to detect the invalid response and retry the challenge-response procedure, transforming a stall condition into a successful authentication attempt
Data Source
AI summary
A receiver that is arranged to receive protected content from a variety of transmitters, some of the transmitters imposing a maximum response time between sending a challenge to the receiver and receiving a response from the receiver while other transmitters lack such a requirement, it is necessary that receivers remain compatible with both systems. To achieve this such a receiver is arranged to receive protected content from a transmitter, the transmitter sending a challenge to the receiver and receiving a response from the receiver, the receiver comprising a processor, the processor configured to execute some or all of a challenge response generator, a communication receiver, the communication receiver configured to receive a challenge from the transmitter, and a communication transmitter, the communication transmitter configured to return a response to the transmitter, the challenge response generator being arranged to receive the challenge from the communication receiver and to generate a response and to transmit the response to the communication transmitter for return to the transmitter after a response delay, wherein the processor is configured to select in response to a challenge one of a first response and a second response: where the first response is a valid response to be provided after a first response delay and where the second response it an invalid response to be provided after a second response delay, and where the second response delay is longer than the first response delay. By providing valid responses with short response times as well as invalid responses with long response times compatibility with legacy transmitters is ensured while at the same time ensuring that receivers that lack means guarding against stalls in the challenge response procedure will be caused to reinitialize by an invalid response.