On Monday, March 6, 2006, 14:26:59, Steve Kann wrote:
> Adrian Sietsma wrote:
>> ...
>> This would imply that _all_ frames received subsequently would be
>> ignored, until frame #4 re-arrives, and resets the sequence ?
>
> That's correct. That's how it works presently, and the way it would
> have to work, unless the receiver stored out-of-order frames (which
> would be a worthwhile optimization to make for the lossy link case, as
> you note below). I think that such an "out-of-order" reciever store
> could be done without changing the specs, though -- as long as it
> doesn't _act_ on frames out-of-order, it could probably defer processing
> them until it got the missing frame.
Is it worth stating that explicitly by saying something along the lines
of:
"The receiver MAY store out-of-order frames but MUST NOT process
them until it receives the missing frame."
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "The avalanche has already started, it is too
Rod Dorman late for the pebbles to vote." - Ambassador Kosh
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
