On 11/23/06, Gerrit Renker <gerrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quoting Ian McDonald:
| I'll have to have a think about this one some more as I spent a lot of
| time fixing these timing and I distinctly remember getting this one
| right!
Please relax: It is not my intention to embark on a game of "who is right here". I think
you have done a good job getting this code so far as it is, given the many and in parts
confusing documents that have to be read (for comparison: UDP, RFC 768, needs only 3 pages).
My intention is in making sure it meets the specifications and contribute where I can to fix things.
Gerrit - I was not trying to cast dispersions on you at all. I just
wanted some time to review it properly as I've spent a bit of time in
this code and would like to review CCID3 changes before they merge.
As it turns out I was wrong in my calculation here. I fixed up the
calculation of packet sending times which used to be wrong but I got
this part (delta) wrong by reversing signs.
==> Since these bits are so similar, I would actually suggest to accommodate them in
one function, since:
--t_ipi changes only if one of `s' or X_calc changes
--if `s' / X_calc remain unchanged after feedback, t_ipi remains as before
--t_delta depends on t_ipi
--the calculation of t_nom depends on t_ipi (as in the above snippets)
Agree.
Gerrit - I really appreciate the work you are doing on CCID3. I'm
pretty sure you're a better programmer than me, I just get a little
sensitive with CCID3 being "my baby" for a fair bit.
Onwards and upwards.
Regards,
Ian
--
Ian McDonald
Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4
Blog: http://imcdnzl.blogspot.com
WAND Network Research Group
Department of Computer Science
University of Waikato
New Zealand
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
