Subject: [hybi] Errata: RE: Framing (hybi Digest, Vol 30, Issue 69)

From: "Bob Gezelter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 03:04:13 -0700

To all,

My apologies. Finger slipped, hit "Send" rather than "Save"

- Bob Gezelter

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Framing (hybi Digest, Vol 30, Issue 69)
> From: "Bob Gezelter" <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, August 22, 2011 3:01 am
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> 
> 
> Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:44:32 +1000
> From: Greg Wilkins <[email-masked]>
> To: Hybi <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [hybi] Framing Management Rationale
> Message-ID:
> <[email-masked]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> >On 20 August 2011 06:38, Jamie Lokier <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >
> >> Greg Wilkins wrote:
> >>> I do understand Andy's concern that max frame size might be wink to
> >>> poor receiver implementations - so how about a third option: ?An
> >>> optional header to declare min/max frame size, but remove the
> >>> frame-too-large error so as to indicate that implementations must be
> >>> able to handle any frame size up to their max message size limit.
> >>
> >> Who's min/max frame size goes in the header?
> >> Intermediary 1, intermediary 2, or the end receiver?
> >
> >I totally agree that frame size should be hop by hop, so any min/max
> >frame size received would only be applicable for the adjacent hop.
> >
> >cheers
> >
> >
> >------------------------------