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 OAA25824 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA28323 for tsvwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:50:05 -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 OAA26954; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:29:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA26919 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:29:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA23541 for ; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:29:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from sob@localhost) by newdev.harvard.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g42ITNi25893; Thu, 2 May 2002 14:29:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 14:29:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Bradner Message-Id: <200205021829.g42ITNi25893@newdev.harvard.edu> To: dotis@sanlight.net, john.loughney@nokia.com, pat_thaler@agilent.com, sob@harvard.edu, tsvwg@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] SCTP Checksum Change to the IESG In-Reply-To: <1BEBA5E8600DD4119A50009027AF54A00B9A8551@axcs04.cos.agilent.com> Sender: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: tsvwg-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Transport Area Working Group X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org > 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 Scott _______________________________________________ tsvwg mailing list tsvwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg