[cgl_discussion] POC Cancelled

Steven Dake sdake at mvista.com
Mon Nov 10 16:06:16 PST 2003


I will add them to the errata list and we can review on the mailing list
before submitting to specs.  I'm a little concerned about the last
requirement and won't submit to specs without a more thorough
explination about the reasoning for the addition.  I suspect specs would
be concerned about adding requirements without a useful reason...


On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 16:26, Fleischer, Julie N wrote:
> > Because of a team meeting in my company, I will be unable to host the
> > 11/12/03 POC meeting.  I will publish the errata shortly, and that
> > errata can be reviewed in the specs mailing list.
> Steve -
> Not sure if these can make it in without POC discussion, but, at this week's POC, I was going to bring up the items we mentioned briefly at the end of last POC for the errata list:
> Per 11/4/03 email by Julie Fleischer:
> >Found a minor bug on page 50. "For example, AVL.7.1 Process-level
> >Non-intrusive...." should be changed to "For example, AVL.8.1
> >Process-level..." The AVL.7.1 should be changed to AVL.8.1...
> >
> >-Terence
> Per 11/4/03 email by Venkat Jagana:
> >The SCTP requirement (STD 4.0) lists RFC 1112
> >(Host extensions for IP multicasting)and we believe that
> >it's a mistake - It isn't an SCTP supporting
> >RFC.
> >So, please remove RFC 1112 from the list there.
> >The SCTP maintainer suggests that we should add
> >RFC 3309 (SCTP Checksum Change) to the SCTP
> >RFC list. This RFC is already supported within
> >the code which is part of 2.6 kernel.
> Thanks.
> - Julie
> **These opinions are not necessarily those of my employer,**

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list