Re: [tcpm] draft-eggert-tcpm-historicize-00

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

rick jones wrote:
> 
> On Jun 28, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>>     - a hypothetical link problem for some links (i.e., jumboframes)
>>         which ought to be fixed by the vendors who support jumboframes
>>
>>         Note that I didn't say "IEEE" here. The same vendors that have
>>         a de-facto standard for jumboframes are the ones who can fix
>>         their mess with a jumboframe CRC ;-)
> 
> I think that is a place where one should be careful what one wishes for.
> If the NIC vendors become too accustomed to going off the standard body
> reservation at the link-layer, chances are they and the other vendor
> types with which they interact won't make much of distinction for
> transport.

They already are going "off the reservation" with jumboframes. Those are either
useless (as you imply above, e.g., because of lack of interoperability), or
important to support properly.

If jumboframes aren't used, AFAICT there's no problem to solve. If they are
used, the problem lies in the jumboframes themselves using an insufficient CRC.

Joe