From: Undetermined origin c/o LISTSERV administrator <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 21:22:56 +0200

Mail.System [email-masked]
        for [email-masked]
        id 11gv8F-0005k7-00; Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:22:43 +0100
X-Failed-Recipients: [email-masked]
@st.com
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 20:22:43 +0100

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to all of its recipients. The
following address(es) failed:

  [email-masked]:
    unknown local-part "colinws" in domain "bristol.st.com"

------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------

Date:         Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:04:11 -0700
Reply-To: "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]>
Sender: IETF IP over 1394 Working Group <[email-masked]>
From: "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]>
Subject:      Re: fragmentation / reassembly specifications in the IP/1394 Draf
              t.
To: [email-masked]

I just learned that we are able to make some very minor tweaks to the
draft 48 hours before it becomes an RFC. At this time, we'll plan to
modify the definition of Buffer_Size from:

   buffer_size: The size of the buffer, expressed as buffer_size + 1
   octets, necessary for the recipient to reassemble the entire IP
   datagram from all of the link fragments. The value of buffer_size
   SHALL be the same for all link fragments of an IP datagram.

To:

   buffer_size: The size of the buffer, expressed as buffer_size + 1
   octets, necessary for the recipient to reassemble the entire IP
   datagram from all of the link fragments; that is, buffer_size + 1
   equals the entire length of the IP datagram that is fragmented.
   The value of buffer_size SHALL be the same for all link fragments
   of an IP datagram.

I think this text clears up the point of confusion Aditya had as well
as another I've heard regarding the interpretation "buffer_size + 1".

-myron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hattig, Myron [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 9:25 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: fragmentation / reassembly specifications in the IP/1394
> Draf t.
>
>
> Aditya sent his suggestion for a mod to the text in a private
> note. His is a
> good suggestion because it clears-up a common point of confusion about
> Buffer_Size. His suggestion is to say:
> The Buffer_size will equal the length of the IP Datagram that is to be
> fragmented.
>
> If this sentence is appended to the end of the description of
> Buffer_Size, I
> think future confusion will be less.
>
> Since the doc has already gone to the RFC editor to become an Proposed
> Standard RFC. The text cannot change in the short term. My
> understanding is
> the that we can make small editorial changes like this when
> and if the doc
> goes from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard. For now I'll
> keep a list
> changes in the doc.
>
> -myron
>