Subject: Re: Minor comments on section 5 changes

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:00:45 -0700

Joel,

Comments inline... 

-----Original Message-----

I had thought we had agreed to a 64 bit correlator rather than a 32 bit 
correlator and a 32 b it sequence number (which is not defined as a 
sequence number, but still named that.)
[HK] I am pretty sure we said a 32 bit correlator & 32 bit seq no

Should the paragraph after the table of ACK modes say that the failure 
results in an ACK if the ACK indicator has been set to 'FailureACK' or 
'AlwaysACK'?  I realize that if the indicator is set to 'AlwaysACK', the

the ack will occur on success as well.  I am just afraid that the
wording 
may lead a lax coder to code the failure branch to only test for
'FailureACK'.
[HK] Good point.

Thanks for the review!
Hormuzd

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:17:08 -0400

But the text does not describe a sequence number.  It describes an 
additional correlator.
If we really want a sequence number, we need to spell out what it 
sequences,  who sets it, and how it is to be used.
Note that if we simply declare this to be an additional part of the 
correlator, the CE can use it as an echoed sequence number, or as part of a 
32 bit pointer, or any other use the CE impementation wants to make.

Yours,
Joel