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