IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [Tsvwg] SCTP Checksum Change to the IESG

Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk> Thu, 02 May 2002 19:14 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 PAA28319 for <tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 2 May 2002 15:14:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA00261 for tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 May 2002 15:14:40 -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 OAA28235; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:49:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA28199 for <tsvwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:49:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk (IDENT:exim@prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk [131.227.76.5]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA25651 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:48:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from kenny.ee.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.74.2] ident=eep1lw) by prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #4) id 173Lbj-0005an-00; Thu, 02 May 2002 19:47:11 +0100
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 19:47:09 +0100
From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
X-X-Sender: eep1lw@kenny.ee.surrey.ac.uk
Reply-To: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
To: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
cc: dotis@sanlight.net, john.loughney@nokia.com, pat_thaler@agilent.com, tsvwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] SCTP Checksum Change to the IESG
In-Reply-To: <200205021829.g42ITNi25893@newdev.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.43.0205021945510.27421-100000@kenny.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Organization: speaking for none
X-url: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/
X-no-archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Scanner: exiscan *173Lbj-0005an-00*XA9wK1c12dc* (SECM, UniS)
Sender: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org

On Thu, 2 May 2002, Scott Bradner wrote:

> > It makes reasonable sense to pass up the received CRC, but recommending
> > passing up a computed new CRC would be an unreasonable constraint on CRC
> > implementations.
>
> I don't quite get this objection
>
> the text in question makes a recommendation it does not mandate
> and it does not claim that its the only way

Anything the draft mentions in a non-negative sense is implicitly
recommended. Why would the draft mention a way that isn't the way to
do it? The word 'recommended' is redundant.

L.

<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>


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

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status