FWIW, this document includes text that somewhat defeats the previous
recommendations of TCPM regarding RFC5927.
RFC5927 includes specific text indicating that the techniques described
are being documented, but that the TCP standard was NOT being changed to
include those ICMP validation
Joe,
On 01/24/2013 04:35 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
FWIW, this document includes text that somewhat defeats the previous
recommendations of TCPM regarding RFC5927.
RFC5927 includes specific text indicating that the techniques described
are being documented, but that the TCP standard was NOT being
On 1/24/2013 1:24 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
Joe,
On 01/24/2013 04:35 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
FWIW, this document includes text that somewhat defeats the previous
recommendations of TCPM regarding RFC5927.
RFC5927 includes specific text indicating that the techniques described
are being
Joe and Fernando,
I just looked at how RFC 5297 is handled in the draft, to be that other
pair of eyes.
The first fix is right, to remove reference to RFC 5297 from that sentence
entirely.
Allison
On Jan 24, 2013 7:19 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 1/24/2013 1:24 PM, Fernando Gont
Thanks - I wasn't positive about the second one. Glad to have it
resolved quickly.
Joe
On 1/24/2013 5:57 PM, Allison Mankin wrote:
Joe and Fernando,
I just looked at how RFC 5297 is handled in the draft, to be that other
pair of eyes.
The first fix is right, to remove reference to RFC 5297
Transport Directorate review of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but
Hi, Allison,
Thanks so much for your feedback! -- Please find my comments in-line
On 01/23/2013 09:33 PM, Allison Mankin wrote:
It is clearly valuable to call the community's attention to the atomic
fragment in IPv6. This is an IPv6 datagram that is not actually
fragmented, but has a
