Subject: [rddp] Marker Consensus

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 16:42:42 -0400

Many thanks to those who have commented.  I see RDDP WG rough
consensus for: 

	Make marker usage OPTIONAL,
	but put control of this option entirely in the hands of
	the receiver - senders MUST implement both markers and not-markers,
	receivers MUST implement one OR the other, and each receiver
	gets to pick which one is used as the benefits of markers are
	primarily on the receiver side.

With the following additions:

- When markers are used, the marker interval MUST be 512 bytes.
- This proposed rough consensus assumes that we will be forced
	to do some sort of setup announcement as part of the
	"proof" requirement, which will provide a place to
	transmit options (and a version number).  Details of
	exactly how this works so that each receiver gets to
	pick what is sent to it are TBD.

Any further disagreements should be posted to the list.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rddp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp

---

From: Caitlin Bestler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 16:13:12 -0500

On 5/8/03, [email-masked] wrote:

>   transmit options (and a version number). 

Oops, forgot the version number in my earlier list on what
has to go into the MPA Mode Frame.

Caitlin Bestler
http://asomi.com/CaitlinBestler/
_______________________________________________
rddp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp