Dan, I apologize for the oversight of this issue #6. We had already agreed with Ted to make the sentence clearer by replacing it with the below text. I just forgot to actually update the draft ;-) Ted will advise me if this can be done in an RFC editor note or a new revision:
from: >If no Processed Tuple (henceforth denoted the "current tuple") > exists in the Processed Set, *with*: > + P_orig_address = the Originator Address of the current Packet; >(*line-break*) > AND; > + P_seq_number = the sequence number of the current Packet. to: >If no Processed Tuple (henceforth denoted the "current tuple") > exists in the Processed Set, *where both of the following >conditions are true*: > + P_orig_address = the Originator Address of the current Packet; >(*line-break*) > AND; > + P_seq_number = the sequence number of the current Packet. Best regards Ulrich On 5/13/13 5:16 AM, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email protected]> wrote: > >Hi, > >As stated in the review made on a previous version of the document, from >my point of view this document is ready. All my questions and concerns >were answered with the exception of issue #6 mentioned below. It would be >nice to have this issue answered as well, however this is a clarification >non-blocking issue. > >Thanks and Regards, > >Dan > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan) >> Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:52 PM >> To: Ulrich Herberg; [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected]; Alvaro Cardenas; [email protected]; Ralph >> Droms (rdroms); [email protected]; Ted Lemon >> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review for draft-cardenas-dff-09 >> >> Hi Ulrich, >> >> I apologize for the late response but travel and holidays intervened. >> >> The updated version answers all my concerns, and thank you for >> addressing these and for the improved specification. >> >> I have only one clarification question to ask, related to your answers: >> >> > >6. In section 9.2 - what happened if when adding a new Processed >> > >Tuple based on a new incoming packet the routing discovers that the >> > >P_seq_number is already in used for another entry in the list. This >> > >can happen, as the sequence numbers are unique per routers, and >> > >current packets may originate from different routers? Is this not a >> problem? >> > Why? >> > >> > That would not be a problem as for each packet, existing tuples are >> > searched using *both* >> > + P_orig_address = the Originator Address of the current Packet, >> > AND; >> > + P_seq_number = the sequence number of the current Packet. >> > >> > >> > So a tuple with same P_seq_number but different P_orig_address would >> > not be returned >> >> Is the algorithm clarified some place in the specification, and I could >> not find it? If such explanation existed it would have answered my >> concern from start, maybe I missed it. If this is not clearly stated, >> maybe adding such an explanation would be useful. >> >> Thanks and Regards, >> >> Dan >> >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Ulrich Herberg [mailto:[email protected]] >> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:29 PM >> > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email protected] >> > Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); [email protected]; >> > [email protected]; [email protected]; Alvaro Cardenas; Ted >> > Lemon >> > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review for draft-cardenas-dff-09 >> > >> > Dan, >> > >> > thank you very much for your review. I tried to address your comments, >> > and have submitted a new revision just now: >> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cardenas-dff-10 >> > See below: >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
