Re: [asterisk-dev] IAX internet draft (draft-guy-iax-00)

[Steve Kann]

Rod Dorman wrote: 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." It wouldn't hurt to put that in there, so it's clear that clients may do this, and it's a good hint to implementors about how they can improve their implementation.  I don't think there's a strong need for this in current practice, where there are few full frames sent in a typical call.  I also don't think it would change anything, because as far as the sender is concerned, it can't really tell that a client does this, because the effect is basically the same as would happen if there was or wasn't reordering in the network. -SteveK

_______________________________________________
--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