Hi Eddie, many thanks indeed for looking into this.
| From Ian's patch, it appears that the OLD code DID NOT include the most | recent loss interval (i.e., the incomplete loss interval, the one that has no | losses) in its calculation of i_tot1. Ian has added the following line to do | this: | | > + i_tot1 += non_loss * dccp_li_hist_w[0]; | | This is correct. The RFC requires that one of the i_tots include the | incomplete loss interval. So this part of the patch is required for RFC | compliance. You are right, there are issues with the current code, and these have not been fixed yet. Some are addressed by Ian's patch, some not. Will send a summary of these to [EMAIL PROTECTED] which will take on board the points you raised. | I don't quite get why one needs dccp_li_hist_recalc_recalcloss. One could do | probably do that simpler, and maybe Ian can explain his reasoning. Why is it | necessary at all? Embedded in Ian's patch is to what seems to be a novel technique and this is why I asked you to look at it, as I had difficulties matching it up with existing RFCs and IDs. If the technique does indeed improve performance then Ian has tackled an original problem and contributed a new algorithm. But I also have difficulties in understanding what the benefits and differences would be. Best regards Gerrit
