Hi, Lou, > 2020/01/27 午前9:41、Lou Berger <lberger@xxxxxxxx>のメール: > > Hi, > > Balázs thank you for the clarification -- see below for one comment. > > On 1/10/2020 8:56 AM, Balázs Varga A wrote: >> Yes, but why not the Preferred CW? >> >> <Balazs>/<Stewart> Sum of mailing + proposed fixing: >> The PCW only supports a 16bit sequence number and it has the skip zero auto-signaling of active S/N feature. >> This was a problem for DetNet because: >> - We were worried about S/N rollover frequency in some applications and so we wanted the option of a larger S/N. >> - We wanted to have the option to propagate the S/N from the payload to the transport to simplify the implementation >> in some cases. These applications have a non-skip zero S/N. Skip zero is an irritation to implement and we should probably >> have signaled in in PWs. >> As you note in is only a preferred design for PWs, DetNet is not constrained by that and there were good reasons to adopt >> this alternate approach. >> We assume to fix this with adding above information to the text. >> NEW text to be added in section 4.2.1: >> "This format of the d-CW was created in order (1) to allow larger S/N space to >> avoid S/N rollover frequency in some applications and (2) to allow non-skip >> zero S/N what simplifies implementation." > > While I completely agree with the rational and validity of the good question, I don't think such motivation belongs in the document. We generally don't document every design decision in a specification. I don't feel strongly about this so if others do, I'll defer to their opinion... > > Balázs, Carlos, Do you think it should stay? > I have no strong feelings either way, but I believe if this is a departure from a “preferred” format from a BCP, then a one-liner explanation would not hurt. I’d leave this one in. Thanks, Carlos. > Thanks, > > Lou (as contributor) > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
