Marker PDU Aligned Framing for TCP Specification
RFC 5044

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Lars Eggert) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) (was Abstain) No Objection

Comment (2006-10-04)
No email
send info
This did not rise to the level of blocking, but I found this disquieting:


   (2a) only indicate a preference to not use CRCs on the explicit
       request of the system administrator, via an interface not defined
       in this spec.  The default configuration for a connection MUST be
       to use CRCs.

<snip>

   The decision for hosts to request CRC suppression MAY be made on an
   administrative basis for any path that provides equivalent protection
   from undetected errors as an end-to-end CRC32c.


Like many "consenting adults" statements in protocol documents, it leaves open
how the two consent.  The second statement also presumes path stability,
which seems a pretty dubious proposition for anything not limited to a single
link.


Nit:

AOne deterministic approach

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection