Hi Luiz, Den ons 4 mars 2020 kl 20:44 skrev Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > It completely transparent to D-Bus, so if we do expose the MTU it > > > should probably be reporting the biggest MTU of all connected channel, > > > > Is there ever any reason for one application to have more than one ATT > > bearer? I thought the idea of EATT was to allow one ATT bearer per > > application. > > EATT is meant to allow multiple outstanding requests, it probably > would not escale if we would add an API to have a bearer per > application so we just use the extra bearers as a pool. I just read the 5.2 overview and 5.2 specification again and I see now that the overview suggests that a pool of bearers should be used, as you mentioned. So yes in that case the maximum ATT_MTU of the bearers seems reasonable to report (if they for some reason would differ). But by having a pool like this, I hope implementations will make sure that multiple Write Without Response values or notifications from the same application are sent on a single bearer, to avoid reorderings. /Emil
