Re: FCIP Last Call, comment 109 - Special Frame

[Ralph Weber <ralphoweber@compuserve.com>]

David,

Forgive me for testing the boundaries of our "violent agreement".

Would the following sentence (in the new FSF Usage section) be
acceptable:

"Note: Owing to the limited manner in which the FSF is used and
the requirement that the FSF be echoed without changes before
a TCP connection is allowed to carry user data, no error checking
beyond that provided by TCP is deemed necessary."

Thanks.

.Ralph

Black_David@emc.com wrote:

> Ralph,
>
> > Regarding:
> >
> > > That [always closing the TCP connection if the SF data changes]
> > > would be fine if the received data were always discarded when a
> > > change occurred that caused connection closure.  My understanding
> > > of the "poor man's SLP" scenario is that the received data is intended
> > > to be used even though the connection was closed.  TCP-grade data
> > > integrity may be ok for that use - if that's the case, a single
> > > sentence saying that as part of the new description of "poor man's
> > > SLP" should be sufficient to close this issue.
> >
> > I have no problems with adding the requested sentence.
> >
> > However...
> >
> > I believe that your understanding of the "poor man's SLP" scenario
> > continues to reflect a misunderstanding of the intrinsic checks
> > that it contains.
>
> We're in violent agreement.  When the data in an SF is changed, the
> intent is that the resulting data is to be used to make a new
> TCP connection.  If the data is corrupt/incorrect, things will go
> wrong on that connection; preventing this is desirable and the
> TCP checksum is deemed to be a sufficient preventative measure.
>
> Thanks,
> --David
> ---------------------------------------------------
> David L. Black, Senior Technologist
> EMC Corporation, 42 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> +1 (508) 249-6449 *NEW*      FAX: +1 (508) 497-8500
> black_david@emc.com         Cell: +1 (978) 394-7754
> ---------------------------------------------------