On 6/2/2012 10:00 PM, C. M. Heard wrote:
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 circumstances would the ID field be absent?
Replace "absent" with "known not unique".
Better, I think, would be "not known to be unique".
Except that the two are not semantically equivalent.
Sorry - I didn't catch that. When the datagram is atomic, under the new
rules, we would *assume* that the ID field was not unique for a
src/dst/protocol triple within the expected time (120 seconds).
I.e., the ID field is "assumed to not be useful for such purposes",
which might be more accurate.
Joe
Indeed. That was why I suggested the change.
//cmh
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area