Re: checksum updating

Anil Rijsinghani 05-Jan-1995 1032 -0500 <anil@netcad.enet.dec.com> Thu, 05 January 1995 16:09 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04709; 5 Jan 95 11:09 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04705; 5 Jan 95 11:09 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08947; 5 Jan 95 11:09 EST
Received: from inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-20) id <AA16634>; Thu, 5 Jan 1995 07:44:38 -0800
Received: from us1rmc.bb.dec.com by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA27704; Thu, 5 Jan 95 07:35:34 -0800
Received: from netcad.enet by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA20030; Thu, 5 Jan 95 10:35:35 -0500
Message-Id: <9501051535.AA20030@us1rmc.bb.dec.com>
Received: from netcad.enet; by us1rmc.enet; Thu, 5 Jan 95 10:35:39 EST
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 95 10:35:39 EST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Anil Rijsinghani 05-Jan-1995 1032 -0500 <anil@netcad.enet.dec.com>
To: fred@cisco.com
Cc: jas@shiva.com, rreq@isi.edu
Apparently-To: rreq@ISI.EDU, jas@shiva.com, fred@cisco.com
Subject: Re: checksum updating

If you do so (I think it would be a good idea), please add a reference
to RFC1624.

Anil

----------------
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 1995 17:11:50 -0800
To: John Shriver <jas@Shiva.COM>
From: fred@cisco.com (Fred Baker)
Subject: Re: checksum updating
Cc: rreq@ISI.EDU

At 11:37 PM 1/4/95, John Shriver wrote:
>The primary reason is that it reduces
>the chance that the router will accidentally corrupt the data

I could add a "discussion" note to the effect that incremental updating has
good arguments besides speed. Sufficient?