Dear Authors,
in your presentation of this draft at IPPM WG meeting I've pointed that
assertion in Section 6 of the draft:
The message formats for DM and LM [RFC6374] do not contain sequence
number for probe query packets.
is not accurate. RFC 6374 allows interpretation of the Timestamp field as a
sequence number. Section 3.4 explains that QTF and RTF values could be 0,
1, 2, or 3, with 1 identifying the sequence number:
1: Sequence number. This value indicates that the timestamp field
is to be viewed as a simple 64-bit sequence number. This provides
a simple solution for applications that do not require a real
absolute timestamp, but only an indication of message ordering; an
example is LM exception detection.
Regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
