IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG

"Gary Kenward" <gkenward@nortelnetworks.com> Thu, 11 July 2002 19:50 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02986 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:50:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA12373; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:48:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA12343 for <seamoby@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:48:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from zcars04f.ca.nortel.com (zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com [47.129.242.57]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA02844 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:47:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from zcard015.ca.nortel.com (zcard015.ca.nortel.com [47.129.30.7]) by zcars04f.ca.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id g6BJlil25627; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:47:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by zcard015.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NYVCCZ0B>; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:47:43 -0400
Message-ID: <9FBD322B7824D511B36900508BF93C9C01AA4C0C@zcard031.ca.nortel.com>
From: Gary Kenward <gkenward@nortelnetworks.com>
To: 'James Kempf' <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>, seamoby@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:47:42 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C22913.752BD700"
Sender: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Context Transfer, Handoff Candidate Discovery, and Dormant Mode Host Alerting <seamoby.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: seamoby@ietf.org

You call it fidelity, I call it data integrity.
I've seen "data integrity" used in publications
(no, I cannot quote references).

What we need is a term that everyone, including the
IESG, can agree upon.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf@docomolabs-usa.com]
> Sent: July 11, 2002 12:22
> To: Kenward, Gary [WDLN2:AN10:EXCH]; seamoby@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the actual answer is to state exactly what was intended
> > originally: that the bit order and bit values have to arrive exactly
> > as they were transmitted.
> >
> 
> So this requirement is talking about transmission fidelity? I 
> sure would not have guessed that from reading it. I thought it
> intended to talk about usability.
> 
> I would suggest that the wording you have above is really a 
> lot more precise that what is currently in the spec.
> 
> Any other comments? Could we substitute Gary's wording above 
> for "meaning" in the current requirement.
> 
>             jak
> 
>

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status