Re: [tcpm] Separate header checksums and WiFi

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 16:58, Joe Touch wrote:
> Michael Welzl wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > A long time ago, at the San Diego IETF meeting in August 2004,
> > I presented an idea called "Corruption Notification Options"
> > (a proposal which is some sort of a refined specification of
> > the TCP HACK idea) to this group.
> > 
> > The group's feedback was that this is useless, as errors
> > occur in such a clustered fashion that you wouldn't see
> > any packets with an intact header but erroneous payload
> > (which is the only situation where the scheme would
> > yield any benefit). I think that it was Gorry Fairhurst
> > who said this.
> 
> There was a separate issue - you need to *know* the header is intact.
> For TCP, there's no separate header checksum to provide that

Well, that's what my proposal added  :)

> information. I.e., this might be possible with UDP-lite, but isn't with
> UDP or TCP. This might not affect the SCTP or DCCP variants, depending
> on what their checksums cover.

It will affect the DCCP Data Checksum, which is just the
same as my TCP proposal. The SCTP proposal is a little
different.

Cheers,
Michael

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