On 8/3/07, Gerrit Renker <gerrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ian, > > to clarify - all rfc3448bis > > It is consistent with revision 00 of draft rfc3448bis; check against: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis-00#section-4.4 > OK there is my issue partially. I'm working against revision 02 and that is quite different :-( > Here is a misunderstanding. ccid3_hc_tx_idle_rtt() measures the amount of time > the sender has not sent anything, returned as integral number of full RTTs. > This notion of idling is consistent with section 6.4 of RFC 4342 and further > consistent with the definition of CCID2's quiescence in section 6.2.1 of RFC 4341. > > If it still seems wrong, then this is something on the level of the specification. > It has taken painstaking effort to align the implementation with RFC 4342, 4340, > 3448, rfc3448bis. I am quite reluctant to start tearing this apart, since it can > not be done `fix' wise: if you do it, then the complete set of changes from rev00 > to rev02 of rfc3448bis needs to be implemented. > Yes I understand. > | Can someone else verify before I fix? I do have a habit of reading > | code wrong so would like verification. > I repeat, the code is consistent with revision 00 of draft rfc3448bis, available > from http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dccp-rfc3448bis-00 > > Given the recent discussions of this, I would like to postpone such discussion until > December, after they have reviewed the next revision of rfc3448bis. > OK. I don't intend to get into long discussions around individual versions or discuss to death. I just didn't realise which version the code was against. It creates a headache for me but that's my problem... Ian -- Web1: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/ Web2: http://www.jandi.co.nz Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz - 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
