Re: [babel] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-06.txt

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]>]

Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> writes:

>> We don't even have a BPF hook that can do this without jumping through
>> a lot of weird hoops :)
>
> Now don't you get any ideas!
>
>> So maybe we should change the text to address the RX side only, so
>> instead of:
>> 
>> "and receive timestamps SHOULD be computed just after the packet is
>> received from the network stack."
>> 
>> we'd have something like:
>> 
>> "and receive timestamps SHOULD be computed at the earliest possible time
>> after the packet is received from the networking hardware.
>
> I'm really not sure.  There's a tradeoff here between engineering
> excellence and implementability.  The wording you're suggesting might be
> difficult or even impossible to implement on some systems (how many
> non-Linux systems have SO_TIMESTAMP?), so I'm not sure I want to recommend
> it.

Right, I see what you mean. I was also more thinking about mentioning
the blocking issue so readers are aware of it, than prescribing a
particular solution to it. WDYT about that?

> On the other hand, the distinction is negligible on the receive side,
> so I'm quite happy with BIRD being only conditionally compliant in
> this case.

Cool :)

-Toke