Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-08

[Henning Rogge <[e-mail]>]

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 Rogge

P.S.: I will be away from work in December, so I added my private email 
[e-mail] to this thread.


-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Fraunhofer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon [phone],   Fax [phone]
mailto:[e-mail] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de