On 2011-1-17, at 22:33, [email protected] wrote: > There may be something special about 802.15.4 that makes this sort of > corruption less of a risk, but I strongly request that the IESG discuss > whether to change both of the above "SHOULD NOT" statements to "MUST NOT" > with an explanation of the significant risks to data integrity (e.g., there's > a reason why RFC 2460 made the UDP checksum mandatory).
I hit the first "SHOULD NOT" in my discuss, but I missed the second one. I'll add it. Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
