Re: [Tsvwg] WG last call on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpcsum-03.txt

Scott,

Section 2.1:

The draft uses the words MUST in telling the implementor where and
when bits are to be replaced in the message.  It is not appropriate
for the draft to do this.  CRC-32c can be calcualted without using
the procedures dictated by section 2.1.  In particular SCTP checksums
can be calculated without replacing the CRC with zero but can be
verified with the CRC in place.  The implementatino is clearly
responsible for calculating the CRC-32c checksum and verifying it
in whatever fashion it may choose and the "MUST" is inappropriate
as applied to the procedure in section 2.1.

--brian

On Fri, 08 Mar 2002, Scott Bradner wrote:

> 
> This starts a working group last call on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpcsum-03.txt.
> 
> The last call will end on March 24th (after the IETF meeting) 
> 
> please send any comments to the tsvwg list 
> 
> thanks
> 
> Scott & Allison
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tsvwg mailing list
> tsvwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
bidulock@openss7.org    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦

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