On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Octavian Purdila
[off-list ref] wrote:

In that case perhaps it is better to add a new field (or rename the
existing one if it is not needed anymore) to store the syn arrival
time? I think it is confusing to store the syn arrival time in the
"synack sent time" field.

That would be reasonable, but I think the longstanding "snt_synack"
name is also good, since the primary purpose of that field is to
measure the RTT of the SYNACK packet.

neal