On Mar 15, 2005, at 1:12 PM, Jonathan Stone wrote:

> On that note: just by quickly skimming the code, I can no longer
> quickly convince myself that tcp_update_sack_list() is fully
> conformant with RFC-2018 .  The original FreeBSDBSD code comments that:
>
>   first reported SACK block MUST be the most recent one [[most recently
>   received? -- jrs]], and the subsequent blocks SHOULD be in the order
>   in which they arrived at the receiver. These two conditions make the
>   implementation fully compliant with RFC-2018.
>
> Is the SHOULD implicitly guaranteed by the tailq, or by something
> else, or do we not guarantee it?

Yes, the TAILQ guarantees that the timeq is always sorted most
recent updated to least recently updated.  Precisely for that
clause of RFC-2018.
-- 
Matt Thomas                     email: matt@3am-software.com
3am Software Foundry              www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA              disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this 
message.