Re: [PWE3] Proposed new 5.4.3 for arch draft

[Alia Atlas <aatlas at avici.com>]

At 11:53 PM 3/2/2004, Stewart Bryant wrote:


> Alia Atlas wrote:
> > The checksum is legitimate to consider as a verification, if one doesn't 
> > want to depend on just the first nibble.
> However the primary decision is surely the first nibble, because
> checksum is still ambiguous.
Yes, absolutely.

> Once you think that you have an IP packet, then the normal IP
> verificatuon rules apply, and surely we can just point to RFC 791
> for how to parse an IP packet rather than spell it out in our
> work?
Sounds fine to me.  I was objecting to having it explicitly ruled out as an 
additional verification.

Alia


> - Stewart
>
>
> > Alia
> >
> > > This is the subject of work in progress.
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > 9.  IANA considerations
> > >
> > >     IANA considerations will be identified in the PWE3 documents that
> > >     define the PWE3 encapsulation, control and management protocols.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > pwe3 mailing list
> > > pwe3@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > pwe3 mailing list
> > > pwe3@ietf.org
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3


_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3