[ippm] Re: comment on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ippm-duplicate-02

[Al Morton <acmorton at att.com>]

Replying to a couple of points:

At 03:42 AM 10/18/2007, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
> Hi Emile,
> ...
> > Methodoly:
> > The methodology (section 2.6) of the draft refers to section 2.6 of 
> > RFC2680 which speaks about sync of clocks:
> > Is the sync of clocks really needed for detecting packet duplication?
>
> No, actually this is one of the things that suprised me as well in
> RFC2680.  Does anybody remember why this is in 2680?

You need to sync the timer (Th) for declaring a packet lost with
the sending time, in a course way at least.  Same is true
for ToD sync when starting and stopping samples: if a port opens
late the first packets will be ignored.
...

> > Relation with ITU/T Y.1540:
> ...
> > Is there also an equivalent to the singletons definition?
>
> I don't have the ITU document handy but I don't remember a singleton
> definition in there.  (Al, correct me if I'm wrong).

You're right, but there are similar conventions, of course.
Y.1540 defines "outcomes" of packet transfer attempts, and
for this topic there are new sections defining duplicate and
replicated packet outcomes.

Al


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