Document: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05
Title: Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field
Reviewer: Eliot Lear
Review Date: 2 June 2012
IETF Last Call Date: 31 May 2012
Summary: This draft is quite well written, and is *very* nearly ready
for publication.
This draft is well written,
Hi, Eliot,
On Jun 2, 2012, at 6:00 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Document: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05
Title: Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field
Reviewer: Eliot Lear
Review Date: 2 June 2012
IETF Last Call Date: 31 May 2012
Summary: This draft is quite well written, and is
On 5/31/12 02:05 , Klaas Wierenga wrote:
On 5/31/12 10:58 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I'm with Brian and Yoav on this. I don't see a need
to change here. And I do think we might lose something
if we become too PC. If a bunch of non-native speakers
did say yes, I found that made the document
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, Eliot,
On Jun 2, 2012, at 6:00 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Document: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05
Title: Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field
Reviewer: Eliot Lear
Review Date: 2 June 2012
IETF Last Call Date: 31 May 2012
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Existing routers, which was relying on ID uniqueness of atomic
packets, are now broken when they fragment the atomic packets.
Such routers were always broken. An atomic packet has DF=0 and any
router fragmenting such a packet was and is non-compliant
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 21:21 -0700, C. M. Heard wrote:
...
In Section 6.1:
Datagram de-duplication can be accomplished using hash-based
duplicate detection for cases where the ID field is absent.
Under what circumstances would the ID field be absent?
Replace
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Glen Zorn wrote:
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 21:21 -0700, C. M. Heard wrote:
...
In Section 6.1:
Datagram de-duplication can be accomplished using hash-based
duplicate detection for cases where the ID field is absent.
Under what
