[standards-jig] JEP-0047 (IBB) Updated
rcb at ceruleanstudios.com
Mon Apr 7 20:41:18 UTC 2003
> Why not just use a counter and tighten up the rules on how the counter is
> used? This will allow much easier error detection of missed packets, as
> was brought up in another email and avoids the whole mess of different
> time stamp implementations on different systems.
That's the part that has been giving me a headache as I read this,
Tracking packets by timestamp to determine if a packet was missed or not
looks like a horribly hairy thing, even with prevseq. I'm trying to catch
up on the list but as far as I see, prevseq is a chain; I can't tell
necessarily if I'm missing one packet, or ten, or one hundred. Just that I
/am/ missing something. A counter gives me a very simple way to go 'well,
I got packet 10, now I got packet 13... huh. I think I'm missing packets
11 and 12.'
Rachel Blackman <rcb at ceruleanstudios.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards