Am 25.11.2015 um 16:11 schrieb Paul Kyzivat:
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.
No problem...
On 11/25/15 2:05 AM, Henning Rogge wrote:Am 24.11.2015 um 17:32 schrieb Paul Kyzivat: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.
It could be that you have a neighbor that will never deliver a packet sequence number, so 9.3 will never apply.
Because I am not sure if packet (9.3) or message (9.4) processing is done first, I make sure to overwrite the data in the current element of the queue in 9.3 when I discover the packet sequence number.
Henning RoggeP.S.: I will be away from work in December, so I added my private email hro...@gmail.com to this thread.
-- Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE Kommunikationssysteme (KOM) Fraunhofer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany Telefon +49 228 9435-961, Fax +49 228 9435 685 mailto:henning.ro...@fkie.fraunhofer.de http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
