Hi Jouni and Kevin,
Sounds great to remove the T flag.
I agree with the points brought up by Kevin except for the use of timestamp and sequence numbers only being based on packet type. I guess it’s really
a question going back to how we see the hierarchy of these 2 identifiers (Flow ID and packet type). We see Flow ID as the highest in this hierarchy with the different packet types as being right below that. Here we expected that the end points of that flow
would either use timestamps or sequence numbers which would be communicated out of band and be associated with the flow ID or possibly with a flow ID and packet type combination. If we associate it with the Packet type then we are essentially dedicating one
bit in the header just for this.
Best regards
Yasser Kilde Bajwa
IP Core Product Manager
MTI Mobile
An MTI Company
Krakasvej 17, 3400 Hilleroed, Denmark
T: +886 908161200
W:
www.mti-mobile.com /
www.mtigroup.com
From: stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Bross, Kevin
Sent: 6. november 2015 10:07
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.korhonen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: hillsboro aftermath: timestamps/sequence numbers
Looks good. A few related thoughts:
1.
I think we should dump the extended header terminology entirely. Each pkt_type will determine the format of the payload.
2.
Should the use of timestamp or sequence be a function of pkt_type and flow_id, or should it be a function purely of pkt_type? [I think I would prefer
the latter.]
3.
Does it make sense to break the timestamp/sequence into “Timestamp/sequence High Word” and “Timestamp/sequence Low Word”? This would still be a 32-bit
composite field, but we could graphically show the position of the high word and the low word in the packet layout diagrams like you show below.
Going with the logic that simpler is often better, I like how the header has simplified over the course of our discussions.
--kb
===================================================================
From:
stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx [mailto:stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 11:22 AM
To: stds-1904-3-tf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: hillsboro aftermath: timestamps/sequence numbers
Folks,
Coming back to discussion we had and kind of was let hanging on my next steps.. so the T-flag and alternating between sn/ts.. I am actually OK to go with what
was proposed during the meeting and toss the T-flag. If we need timestamps that can be decided per flow_id and packet type.
If folks agree with the above we would end up to a header as below:
So, everybody happy with this? I did collapse the extended_header_space and the payload into the same illustration, since they essentially are the same (subject
to the packet type).
- Jouni
--
Jouni Korhonen, CTO Office, Networking, Broadcom Corporation
O: +1-408-922-8135, M: +1-408-391-7160
=== MICROELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY INC. ===
This message (and any attachments) may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise protected by law. The message is intended solely for the named addressee (or a person responsible for delivering it to the addressee). If you
are not the intended recipient of this message, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please destroy the message or delete it from your system immediately
and notify the sender.