Re: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG

Gary,

All we need to do is agree on some wording that is precise enough for the IESG. I like your wording. Can you please
substitute "bit order and bit values" for "meaning" in the requirement? Unless there is any objection from the WG.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Kenward" <gkenward@nortelnetworks.com>
To: "'James Kempf'" <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>; <seamoby@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG

> 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
> >
> >
>

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby