Re: [Int-area] Apps Directorate Review of draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05
"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Sun, 03 June 2012 05:26 UTC
Return-Path: <heard@pobox.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B35021F8484 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 22:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.493
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UHb9vFd--oNf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 22:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (shell4.bayarea.net [209.128.82.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CCC921F8483 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 22:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31369 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2012 22:00:02 -0700
Received: from shell4.bayarea.net (209.128.82.1) by shell4.bayarea.net with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 2 Jun 2012 22:00:02 -0700
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:00:01 -0700
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-X-Sender: heard@shell4.bayarea.net
To: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Apps Directorate Review of draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05
In-Reply-To: <1338699237.5620.3.camel@gwz-laptop>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1206022157100.17026@shell4.bayarea.net>
References: <4FCA0E7F.7020109@cisco.com> <ACEDFEC8-1525-47B0-92D8-FB7CB1D22A0C@isi.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1206022113110.17026@shell4.bayarea.net> <1338699237.5620.3.camel@gwz-laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: Internet Area <int-area@ietf.org>, Apps Discussion <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 05:26:44 -0000
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Glen Zorn wrote: > On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 21:21 -0700, C. M. Heard wrote: > > ... > > > > > In Section 6.1: > > > > > > > > > > > >> Datagram de-duplication can be accomplished using hash-based > > > >> duplicate detection for cases where the ID field is absent. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Under what circumstances would the ID field be absent? > > > > > > Replace "absent" with "known not unique". > > > > Better, I think, would be "not known to be unique". > > Except that the two are not semantically equivalent. Indeed. That was why I suggested the change. //cmh
- Apps Directorate Review of draft-ietf-intarea-ipv… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Int-area] Apps Directorate Review of draft-i… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Apps Directorate Review of draft-i… C. M. Heard
- Re: [Int-area] Apps Directorate Review of draft-i… Glen Zorn
- Re: [Int-area] Apps Directorate Review of draft-i… C. M. Heard
- Re: [Int-area] Apps Directorate Review of draft-i… Joe Touch
- Re: [Int-area] Apps Directorate Review of draft-i… Joe Touch