Subject: Re: WG Last Call on IPv4/1394

From: "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 11:01:26 -0800

Peter, I understand what you are saying about 1394 bridges
quarantining packets from remote buses. However, adding
the "and responses" clause does not harm anything. The
worst thing that will happen is bridges will always
quarantine packets and the code in IP/1394 implementations
that toss ARP responses from remote buses will never get
executed.

The small benefit of adding "and responses" is a clear definition
what IP/1394 implementations should do now (with or without bridges)
and an increase in the odds that ARP responses from remote buses
will be addressed when we produce an IP/1394 spec that does account for
1394 bridges.

The real cost of adding the "and responses" to the text is
that we have to produce another draft and we restart the WG
Last Call.

Given the costs/benefits, I'd like leave the text as it is and move
forward with the WG Last call. Opinions? If the IETF last call
requires an update to the draft, we can add "and responses" to
the draft.

-myron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Johansson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 7:34 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: WG Last Call on IPv4/1394
...
> A bridge-unaware node CAN'T initiate transaction requests
> addressed to a
> remote bus---it will be quarantined by its adjacent bridge
> portal because it
> has not identified itself to the bridge. This is why I left
> "...and responses"
> out of the restrictions.

---

From: Myron Hattig <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 23:07:36 -0800

While I enjoyed reading about HUMAN GROWTH HORMONES ;-), I was hoping
to hear people's opinions on keeping the draft the same or adding
"and response" wrt to ARP. Opinions please ...

-myron