SORT BY:

LIST ORDER
THREAD
AUTHOR
SUBJECT


SEARCH

IPS HOME


    [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

    RE: FCIP Last Call, comment 109 - Special Frame



    Yes, that's fine.  --David
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Ralph Weber [mailto:ralphoweber@compuserve.com]
    > Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 11:24 AM
    > To: IPS Reflector
    > Cc: David Black
    > Subject: Re: FCIP Last Call, comment 109 - Special Frame
    > 
    > 
    > David,
    > 
    > Forgive me for testing the boundaries of our "violent agreement".
    > 
    > Would the following sentence (in the new FSF Usage section) be
    > acceptable:
    > 
    > "Note: Owing to the limited manner in which the FSF is used and
    > the requirement that the FSF be echoed without changes before
    > a TCP connection is allowed to carry user data, no error checking
    > beyond that provided by TCP is deemed necessary."
    > 
    > Thanks.
    > 
    > .Ralph
    > 
    > Black_David@emc.com wrote:
    > 
    > > Ralph,
    > >
    > > > Regarding:
    > > >
    > > > > That [always closing the TCP connection if the SF data changes]
    > > > > would be fine if the received data were always discarded when a
    > > > > change occurred that caused connection closure.  My 
    > understanding
    > > > > of the "poor man's SLP" scenario is that the received 
    > data is intended
    > > > > to be used even though the connection was closed.  
    > TCP-grade data
    > > > > integrity may be ok for that use - if that's the case, a single
    > > > > sentence saying that as part of the new description of 
    > "poor man's
    > > > > SLP" should be sufficient to close this issue.
    > > >
    > > > I have no problems with adding the requested sentence.
    > > >
    > > > However...
    > > >
    > > > I believe that your understanding of the "poor man's SLP" scenario
    > > > continues to reflect a misunderstanding of the intrinsic checks
    > > > that it contains.
    > >
    > > We're in violent agreement.  When the data in an SF is changed, the
    > > intent is that the resulting data is to be used to make a new
    > > TCP connection.  If the data is corrupt/incorrect, things will go
    > > wrong on that connection; preventing this is desirable and the
    > > TCP checksum is deemed to be a sufficient preventative measure.
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > --David
    > > ---------------------------------------------------
    > > David L. Black, Senior Technologist
    > > EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
    > > +1 (508) 249-6449 *NEW*      FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
    > > black_david@emc.com         Cell: +1 (978) 394-7754
    > > ---------------------------------------------------
    > 
    > 
    > 
    


Home

Last updated: Mon Apr 29 13:18:29 2002
9838 messages in chronological order