Mr.Brim,

Thank you for your comment and suggestion.
We will update the draft reflecting your idea
if we have no other comments.

Best Regards,

Jun

> On 8/21/08 5:35 AM, actech allegedly wrote:
>> Mr.Brim and Mr.Jennings,
>>
>> Thank you for your comments.
>>
>>>> I still make a friendly suggestion that you document that dependency,
>>>> because if there is an extension to the ATRAC specification in the
>>>> future to support a higher bit rate, this protocol might break.
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>> If we assume that the smallest MTU is 576, would anything need to be
>>>> changed?
>> In order to solve the problem, we have two ways that
>> - incorporating rollover mechanism
>> - increasing of bit number for fragment counter(FrgNo)
>>
>> Incorporating rollover is easy to modify the standard.
>> However, the determination of right order of the packets are sometimes
>> impossible if the received packets have the identical FrgNo and
>> severely reversed or inverted arrival of the packets are occured.
>>
>> Regarding on increasing of the bit number, appropriate bit number should be
>> determined considering various MTU size, or assuming some limitation.
>> In addition, the impact of modification of the draft is not small in
>> current (our) system.
>>
>> We are happy if we can have your further comments.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jun
> 
> My suggestion is not to change the specification, but simply to document
> the assumption.  For example:
> 
>    Fragment Number (FrgNo): 3 bits
>    In the event of data fragmentation, this value is one for the first
>    packet, and increases sequentially for the remaining fragmented data
>    packets. This value SHOULD be zero for an unfragmented frame.  (Note:
>    3 bits is sufficient to avoid Fragment Number rollover given the
>    current maximum supported bit-rate in the ATRAC specification.  If
>    that changes, the choice of 3 bits for the Fragment Number should be
>    revisited.)
> 
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to