----- Original Message ----- From: "jamal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "IETF Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 6:12 AM Subject: Re: Re[4]: www.isoc.org unreachable when ECN is used
> On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 23:34, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > > This conflicts with Linux having a broken implementation (and yes, it is > > broken, because it is not interoperatively better). > > Your definition of broken is a little off. I would think the broken > implementation is the one that misunderstood the definition. "reserved" > as i have been enlightened privately has been clearly defined at IETF A citation here (from anyone) would be really helpful. This is also my understanding, but I have no idea why I think so, and would prefer to continue the discussion knowing whether we've actually written this down, or whether this is a commonly held belief resulting from being conservative in what you send and liberal in what you accept. > as: > a) Must be set to zero on transmission > b) Should be ignored upon reception.
