Re: [ippm] Review of: draft-ietf-ippm-reordering-12.txt

Al-

> Yes, but your comments on this applied to section 3.
> 
> We use the message number in the reordering singleton definition.  We
> also agreed to keep SrcTime as a mandatory parameter, and mention time
> and bytes only as secondary means to determine order.  When we
> discussed this in Minneapolis last year, you came to the mic to agree
> with this, even where we did not implement your comments verbatim (as
> with the SrcTime parameter).  A summary of comments and responses is
> here: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05mar/slides/ippm-1.pdf
> 
> We're discussing a later section here (4.5), and you expressed no
> objections about using time to quantify the extent of reordering,
> AFAIK.

Doh!  This is what I get for not going back and looking at the draft.
You're right that my objection was in terms of determining the
out-of-orderness and not determining the extent or the characteristics
this dynamic created.  I do support the use of time for characterizing
reordering events, just not for determining the event.  But, somehow I
misread the context of Bert's note.  In any case, sorry for the spurious
chud.  I'll shut up now! :)

allman