, at 12:58, Stewart Bryant <mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review result: Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Ple
From: Stewart Bryant [stbry...@cisco.com]
Sent: 14 January 2014 22:46
To: Wesley Eddy; Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng);cur...@ipv6.occnc.com
Cc:go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk;m...@ietf.org;i...@ietf.org;ra...@psg.com;ts...@ietf.org;j...@mit.edu;lisp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] [mpls] OT (was Re
Lloyd
I have just read the Stone paper and I have some significant
concerns about its validity with modern h/w. Certainly it
is hard to credit the notion that the error rate
is in the range 1:1000 to 1:32000 as reported by the authors.
The paper was written in 2000 with hardware that would
I agree the paper is now obsolete.
Stewart
On 14/01/2014 17:06, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
Lloyd,
Maybe you should reread the paper too before citing it as evidence.
Check the date on it. Check the cited causes of errors.
Packet traces from 1998 and 1999 are prehaps not so relevante today,
On 14/01/2014 22:07, Wesley Eddy wrote:
On 1/14/2014 4:57 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
I don't think sayng 'oh, that error source is no longer a problem' disproves
Stone's overall point about undetected errors, though the
examples he uses from the technology of the day are necessarily
dated.
