Hi, As stated in the review made on a previous version of the document, from my point of view this document is ready. All my questions and concerns were answered with the exception of issue #6 mentioned below. It would be nice to have this issue answered as well, however this is a clarification non-blocking issue.
Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:52 PM > To: Ulrich Herberg; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; Alvaro Cardenas; [email protected]; Ralph > Droms (rdroms); [email protected]; Ted Lemon > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-cardenas-dff-09 > > Hi Ulrich, > > I apologize for the late response but travel and holidays intervened. > > The updated version answers all my concerns, and thank you for > addressing these and for the improved specification. > > I have only one clarification question to ask, related to your answers: > > > >6. In section 9.2 - what happened if when adding a new Processed > > >Tuple based on a new incoming packet the routing discovers that the > > >P_seq_number is already in used for another entry in the list. This > > >can happen, as the sequence numbers are unique per routers, and > > >current packets may originate from different routers? Is this not a > problem? > > Why? > > > > That would not be a problem as for each packet, existing tuples are > > searched using *both* > > + P_orig_address = the Originator Address of the current Packet, > > AND; > > + P_seq_number = the sequence number of the current Packet. > > > > > > So a tuple with same P_seq_number but different P_orig_address would > > not be returned > > Is the algorithm clarified some place in the specification, and I could > not find it? If such explanation existed it would have answered my > concern from start, maybe I missed it. If this is not clearly stated, > maybe adding such an explanation would be useful. > > Thanks and Regards, > > Dan > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:29 PM > > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected] > > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; Alvaro Cardenas; Ted > > Lemon > > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review for draft-cardenas-dff-09 > > > > Dan, > > > > thank you very much for your review. I tried to address your comments, > > and have submitted a new revision just now: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cardenas-dff-10 > > See below: > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
