Subject: RE: [rddp] STag validation semantics

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:43:11 -0400

> I believe these semantics should be clarified, and moved to
> the rddp document. I'll volunteer to do the drafting once a
> concensus is reached on the reflector and the editability of
> the drafts has been established.

There's no need to wait for the latter.  This entire area was
intended to be encompassed by the brief statement in both drafts
that "The STag access control model is defined by a (forthcoming)
document."  The "editability" state of the current drafts should
not be an obstacle to working on that separate draft.

As for the former (i.e., consensus), many thanks to Caitlin for
opening this technical area, please discuss ...

Thanks,
--David
---------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 249-6449            FAX: +1 (508) 497-8018
[email-masked]       Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
---------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rddp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp

---

From: "Amir Shalit" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:06:35 -0700

DDP draft makes the following requirement:

"LLP MUST provide a strong digest (at least equivalent to CRC32-C) 
to cover at least the DDP Segment. It is believed that some 
of the existing data integrity digests are not sufficient and 
that direct memory transfer semantics require a stronger digest 
than, for example, a simple checksum."

SCTP requires Adler-32 checksum which is "almost as strong as" CRC-32.
I suggest to change the wording to allow an LLP with Adler-32 digest
such as SCTP.

Amir