Re: frame formats

["John Hufferd" <hufferd@us.ibm.com>]

Well, perhaps I was just not quick enough.  I thought I would let this
settle out a bit before I added my two cents.

If you all remember, some folks on this reflector gave Julian a hard time
because you would have to use a length field that you were not sure was OK,
if you had a digest error and wanted to jump forward to the next, etc. etc.
etc.  I am sure you all remember this.  OK, now that Julian proposed a
parity way to ensure that you could trust the length field, some of the
parties, have now, I think, voted for format #2.  Unless you want now to
reconsider your vote, we should stop giving Julian a hard time about the
length not being ensured correct in the presents of a Digest Error.

Either drop the session, or use the length to see if you can get somewhere,
search for the next marker etc.  All the stuff you said you did not like
before.  OK, now you have format 2, but lets not go over that old ground
now that you have decided against the parity.

.
.
.
John L. Hufferd
Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
IBM/SSG San Jose Ca
(408) 256-0403, Tie: 276-0403,  eFax: (408) 904-4688
Internet address: hufferd@us.ibm.com


Julian Satran/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL@ece.cmu.edu on 03/30/2001 08:51:50 AM

Sent by:  owner-ips@ece.cmu.edu


To:   ips@ece.cmu.edu
cc:
Subject:  frame formats





Dear colleagues,

It look like Format-2 is selected by popular vote.

Julo