Henning,
I'm not trying to second guess the intent. My issues are solely with the
presentation. And clearly this is not a subject I'm knowledgeable about,
so I'm going solely from what I read in this draft without any other
context. Somebody who has the proper context to be reading this may well
not find it at all confusing. Nevertheless, see inline.
On 11/25/15 2:05 AM, Henning Rogge wrote:
Am 24.11.2015 um 17:32 schrieb Paul Kyzivat:
OK. But my confusion remains, because there seem to be duplicate actions
in both 9.3 and 9.4 that ought not be done twice. In particular:
9.3:
1. If L_DAT_last_pkt_seqno = UNDEFINED, then:
1. L_DAT_received[TAIL] := 1.
2. L_DAT_total[TAIL] := 1.
9.4:
3. If L_DAT_last_pkt_seqno = UNDEFINED, then:
1. L_DAT_received[TAIL] := L_DAT_received[TAIL] + 1.
2. L_DAT_total[TAIL] := L_DAT_total[TAIL] + 1.
So, if I do 9.3 for every packet, and then also do 9.4 for every HELLO
message within that packet, then I could end up incrementing
L_DAT_received[TAIL] *twice*.
If you look at the head of section 9.3 you will notice that this section
will only be processed in the presence of a packet sequence number. One
of the first things 9.3 does is to set the L_DAT_last_pkt_seqno variable.
OK. My mistake. Because 9.3 sets L_DAT_last_pkt_seqno it won't get
updated again in 9.4.
But then, what is the purpose step 3 of 9.4? If 9.3 is always applied
before 9.4, then L_DAT_last_pkt_seqno can never be undefined in 9.4.
Thanks,
Paul
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
