Comment on LCT draft

All,

I received the following comment in the IESG Last Call for LCT:

"Section 5.2.2 specifies an overloading of the ERT flag and ERT field:

|  Expected Residual Time (ERT): ERT flag, corresponding 32 bit time
|  value
|
|     This timing information represents the sender expected residual
|     transmission time for the current session or for the transmission
|     of the current object.  If the packet containing the ERT timing
|     information also contains the TOI field, then ERT refers to the
|     object corresponding to the TOI field, otherwise it refers to the
|     session.

This overloading seems to be potentially dangerous; it prematurely
excludes the possibility to specify a session ERT value whenever
a session carries multiple objects and hence needs to make use of
TOI in every packet.
Wouldn't it be a more clean solution to spent another bit and
optional field, to achieve a clean separation of both Object ERT
and Session ERT ?"

This seems reasonable to me, except that I would not change the semantics of the existing bit (for backwards compatibility reasons), but rather add an additional "Expected Session Residual Time" field. However I was not involved in any of the original discussions on the EXT_TIME header, so I would like to know if there are any comments on this from those that were (or indeed anyone else).

...Mark

_______________________________________________
Rmt mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt