re: FDDI RFC
Craig Partridge <craig@NNSC.NSF.NET> Fri, 09 March 1990 17:20 UTC
Received: from merit.edu by NRI.NRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09005; 9 Mar 90 12:20 EST
Received: Fri, 9 Mar 90 12:21:13 EST from nnsc.nsf.net by merit.edu (5.59/1.6)
Message-Id: <9003091721.AA08766@merit.edu>
To: katz@merit.edu
Cc: fddi@merit.edu, jnc@lcs.mit.edu
Subject: re: FDDI RFC
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 1990 12:17:01 -0500
From: Craig Partridge <craig@NNSC.NSF.NET>
Status: O
Dave: Looked good to me, but for one minor concern. > Host implementations should be prepared to accept full-length > packets; however, hosts must not send datagrams longer than 576 > octets unless they have explicit knowledge that the destination > is prepared to accept them. A host may communicate its size > preference in TCP-based applications via the TCP Maximum Segment > Size option [16]. Strictly speaking, the TCP Max Seg Size option does not say anything about IP -- it just says the largest size the remote TCP will accept. We assume the TCP won't exceed the local max IP datagram size, but it legitimately can. This is a real nit -- so unless anyone else in uncomfortable, I'd leave this text as is (you do say "may communicate"). Craig
- FDDI RFC Dave Katz
- re: FDDI RFC Craig Partridge
- Re: re: FDDI RFC Steve Deering
- Re: FDDI RFC Drew Daniel Perkins
- re: FDDI RFC Dave Katz
- Re: FDDI RFC Noel Chiappa