Subject: RE: [rddp] CRC - partial rough consensus

From: "Barron, Dwight" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 17:09:43 -0500

There was also some discussion around *if* CRC usage is optional it should be
specified in a manner that does not compel ULPs to compensate with their own CRC.

Regards,
Dwight

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 4:25 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [rddp] CRC - partial rough consensus
> 
> 
> The CRC discussion does not seem to be finished, but
> I'd like to try to nail down some of the progress that
> has been made.  I believe that there is RDDP WG rough
> consensus for:
> 
> (A) CRC support MUST be implemented.
> 
> I'm going to refrain from calling consensus on
> "OPTIONAL vs. MANDATORY to use" at this time (although I
> think the discussion has focused on the key issue of the
> level of service a ULP using RDDP over TCP should expect).
> 
> Nonetheless, *if* CRC usage is optional I believe that
> there is WG rough consensus for:
> 
> (B) CRC usage is all-or-nothing on header and data.
> 	There is no requirement for CRC on header but
> 	not on data or CRC on data but not on header.
> 
> NB: This does not imply that there is a single CRC
> 	vs. split header and data CRCs, as there are some
> 	additional issues bearing on this.
> 
> (C) CRC usage is bidirectional.  Either CRCs are used
> 	in both directions on a connection, or in neither.
> 	There is no requirement for CRC usage in one
> 	direction and not the other.
> 
> (D) CRC omission requires consent of both ends of the
> 	connection.  If either end of the connection
> 	specifies that CRCs are to be used, then they
> 	MUST be used [in both directions (C)].  This entails
> 	some sort of mechanism to enforce CRC usage when
> 	the two ends of the connection start out with
> 	different preferences (or break the connection
> 	if the different preference have created a
> 	situation from which it is impossible to continue).
> 
> I'm also going to refrain from calling consensus on whether
> the CRC field is present if CRC is not used - that seems
> like an issue that ought to be taken up after the
> requirements are settled.
> 
> Objections to the above four items of rough consensus 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
> 
_______________________________________________
rddp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp