Re: ULE-01 : last byte(s) precision

[Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>]

alain.ritoux@6wind.com wrote:

> Mahesh Sooriyabandara wrote:
>
> > ... snip ...
>
> >
>
> > I also think it may not be worth to add extra complexity to receiver 
> > code for
> >
> > (1 or 2)/184 gain.
> >
> > But what exactly is the real penalty if we choose to allow splitting of
> > length
> > field and/or end indicator?
>
>
> - more complexity in the code of the receiver, because it has to
> keep a sort of new state for an SNDU which is currently being
> in the reass process and whose length is still not known.

The current spec says the sender *MAY* choose to do this, either based 
on policy, or some otehr rules. So if the sender wishes to never 
fragment the length, this is allowed, that's currently a design choice 
for the encapsulation gateway.

So the issue you speak of is a receiver simplification. I worry about 
the breadth of implementation experience here.  Is this important 
enougth to add a mandatory rule to require the sender to do this? - I'd 
like to understand more.

> - in case of end of packing, the end-indicator needs an extra
> TS-cell to be transmitted. 

Not so, the current spec says the receiver MUST discard any TS-Packet 
Payload with only one byte remaining, when looking for a new start of SNDU.

> well, that's not overkilling, but I don't think the 1 byte gain (in 
> only some cases) is really worth the effort.
>
> Alain. 


Gorry