[erlang-questions] Sender punishment removed

[Guilherme Andrade]

On 25 January 2018 at 16:34, Jesper Louis Andersen <
jesper.louis.andersen@REDACTED> wrote:

> 2. Node B, where Bob lives, receives the message in its TCP stack. At this
> point the message enters the mailbox of process Bob, so we take a Ts =
> monotonic_timestamp(), but at node B. This means the timestamp is a bound
> on the sojourn. The reported value is always going to be lower than the
> actual sojourn (since we don't measure the TCP travel time). But if the
> reported sojourn is too high for our taste, we can always reject the
> message.
>

Ah yes, that makes perfect sense, of course. I was reasoning within the
expectation that we wouldn't want to change something so fundamental as the
nature of inboxes in ERTS. But indeed there's no good alternative.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20180125/4d0a8508/attachment.htm>