On 4/1/2015 11:05 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > On 01/04/2015 18:38, Joe Touch wrote: >> >> On 4/1/2015 1:14 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: >>> Because the IPv6 delivery header does not include a checksum of its >>> own, it is subject to corruption. >>> >>> SB> It is subject to corruption whether or not it has a checksum. >>> SB> The point is that there may be undetected corruption. However >>> SB> detection in only probabilistic even with a checksum. So >>> SB> I think that that this text should be: >>> >>> Because the IPv6 delivery header does not include a checksum of its >>> own, it is subject to higher probability of undetected corruption. >> The probability of undetected corruption is 100%. And a checksum isn't >> the only way to detect errors. >> >> IMO: >> >> Because the IPv6 delivery header does not include error detection, it is >> subject to undetected corruption. >> >> Joe >> . >> > I accept that there are other possible error checking technique, but > the original text is talking about checksum. However no check is > perfect so I still think it needs to be: > > Because the IPv6 delivery header does not include error detection, > it is subject to a higher probability of undetected corruption.
Point taken. Better. Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
