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

At 04:21 PM 4/21/2006, Mark Allman wrote:
>I thought we agree to get rid of the "units of time" notion in that it
>makes it either damn hard or impossible for the receiver to know what is
>expected (as opposed to a sequence number, which makes it trivial).
>
>allman

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.

Al

_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
ippm@ietf.org 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm