[e2e] Reacting to corruption based loss

[Charles M. Hannum]

This gets weirder when you consider the implications of corruption on 
link-layer protocols.

E.g., 802.11 typically will adapt to signal problems by detecting corruption 
(at the link layer) and switching to a slower transfer rate (more accurately: 
to a different coding method at a slower rate), which usually alleviates the 
problem.  In this case, IP will never detect a corrupt packet (because 
corruption is handled at a lower level), and a notification from the link 
layer would likely not be useful (because the link layer adapts to alleviate 
the problem).

The $64 (64-bit?) question is: is there something you could actually do with 
the information that would be compelling enough to be worth a layering 
violation?  Since this would be annoying for many implementors, there needs 
to be a really compelling argument for it.