Re: [dccp] dccp spec review (Rescorla)

[Sally Floyd <floyd@icir.org>]

Reiner -

>>(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.

Yep, I agree that that is the question on the table, with regard
to partial checksums in DCCP.

- Sally

_______________________________________________
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