Re: Router Requirements Inactivity

stev knowles <stev@ftp.com> Mon, 06 June 1994 18:01 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06043; 6 Jun 94 14:01 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06039; 6 Jun 94 14:01 EDT
Received: from moe.rice.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19891; 6 Jun 94 14:01 EDT
Received: from ftp.com (wd40.ftp.com) by moe.rice.edu (AA16104); Mon, 6 Jun 94 12:34:45 CDT
Received: from ftp.com by ftp.com ; Mon, 6 Jun 1994 13:34:41 -0400
Received: from mailserv-D.ftp.com by ftp.com ; Mon, 6 Jun 1994 13:34:41 -0400
Received: from stev.d-cell.ftp.com by mailserv-D.ftp.com (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA28820; Mon, 6 Jun 94 13:32:58 EDT
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 1994 13:32:58 -0400
Message-Id: <9406061732.AA28820@mailserv-D.ftp.com>
To: fbaker@acc.com
Subject: Re: Router Requirements Inactivity
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: stev knowles <stev@ftp.com>
Cc: mahdavi@tesla.psc.edu, rreq@rice.edu
X-Orig-Sender: stev@mailserv-d.ftp.com
Repository: mailserv-D.ftp.com, [message accepted at Mon Jun 6 13:32:48 1994]
Originating-Client: d-cell.ftp.com
Content-Length: 557


>    - Precedence & TOS should be respected in the drop policy

seems to me that i talked to someone (van ?) who had actually done
some research, and who had decided that any exceptions to the drop
policy were not worth the overhead to implement (i asked about trying 
to avoid dropping packs with the frag bit sent . . .)

>    - Routers with advanced algorithms must document those algorithms


while i agree whole-heartedly with this, i think that some vendors
may object to requiring too much in the way of documenting internal 
algorithms . . . .