On 10/07/2012 12:23 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Oct 7, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
>
>> English as second language here, so the difference is not that big
>> for me.
>
> No linguistic criticism intended, Fernando;
I was actually *encouraging* them :-), since I might use terms or
expressions that might sound incorrect to a native English-speaking person.
> in general, folks tend to
> refer to the 'first fragment', but there're really only initial
> fragments and non-initial fragments.
I guess the order (first, second, etc.) could refer to the order in
which the fragments are received, or the order that they "occupy" in the
original fragment?
e.g., it's easier to refer to each of the fragments in a, say,
four-fragment packet as "{first, second, third, fourth} fragment" as
oposed to....mm.. initial fragment, last fragment, and... what about the
two "middle" fragments?
P.S.: Discussion this one is important, since we're about to ship
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments...
Cheers,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email protected]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
