Re: Questions from a User Perspective
minshall@wc.novell.com Fri, 11 June 1993 18:40 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11842; 11 Jun 93 14:40 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11838; 11 Jun 93 14:40 EDT
Received: from thumper.bellcore.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23232; 11 Jun 93 14:40 EDT
Received: by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7) id <AA16274> for ietf-archive@nri.reston.va.us; Fri, 11 Jun 93 14:38:49 EDT
Received: from wc.novell.com (optics.wc.novell.com) by thumper.bellcore.com (4.1/4.7) id <AA16230> for /usr/lib/sendmail -oi -fowner-pip X-pip; Fri, 11 Jun 93 14:38:45 EDT
Received: from Untitled ([130.57.64.145]) by wc.novell.com (4.1/smi4.1.1.v91190) id AA25835; Fri, 11 Jun 93 11:34:54 PDT
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1993 11:34:52 -0700
Message-Id: <9306111834.AA25835@wc.novell.com>
To: SSmith@chipcom.com, kasten@ftp.com
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: minshall@wc.novell.com
X-Sender: minshall@optics.wc.novell.com
Subject: Re: Questions from a User Perspective
Cc: tuba@lanl.gov, pip@thumper.bellcore.com, sip@caldera.usc.edu
Just FYI... >> protocols. If so, why can't they just be removed from the "standard"? Could >> one specific value of the checksum be used to mean "consider me good", and >> permit checksums to be used where desired and set to this constant value when >> not?) This is, in fact, the way IPX [Novell] checksums work. A value of FFFF --> no checksums; any other value --> checksum [IP calculation]. Checksums are used in a few of our newer products. Greg Minshall minshall@wc.novell.com Novell, Inc. +1 510 975-4507
- Questions from a User Perspective Sam Smith 8005
- Re: Questions from a User Perspective Frank Kastenholz
- Re: Questions from a User Perspective Christian Huitema
- Re: Questions from a User Perspective minshall