inline. Colin Perkins wrote:
--> Jonathan Rosenberg writes:
Not until the point at which you get that next packet. But at that point, yes, you are correct.I would propose the last two sentences be replaced with:
Receivers MUST be prepared to handle the absence of packets for an arbitrary period of time in order to accomodate silence suppression at the sender. This applies even if silence suppression is not in use (which can be known to the receiver through signaling, outside the scope of this specification), because packet loss cannot be distinguished from silence suppression.
This is not accurate either, since you can distinguish loss from silence
suppression using the sequence number.
How about, "because packet loss may cause arbitrary gaps in reception which cannot be distinguished from silence suppression until the arrival of the next packet."to "because packet loss may cause arbitrary gaps in reception", or similar?