Re: [dccp] dccp spec review (Rescorla)

["Michael Welzl" <michael.welzl@uibk.ac.at>]

Hi,

> >(2) If bit errors aren't sufficiently frequent in the current Internet,
> >would we like to enable future link level technologies that can
> >be just a touch more relaxed about allowing bit errors, or not?
>
> I think that's the more relevant question that needs to be discussed: Do
we
> want future wireless link layers to deliver broken (to what degree?) IP
> packets to the receiving IP; maybe with some kind of corruption-marking?
If
> so, then allowing partial checksums in DCCP would create an incentive for
> future L2 standardization efforts to support this in future L2 protocols.

To me, this sounds very reasonable. I vote for broken packets   :)

Best regards,
Michael



_______________________________________________
dccp IETF mailing list: dccp@ietf.org
list info:  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dccp
wg charter: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dccp-charter.html