[Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-07: (with DISCUSS)

Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 02 December 2020 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietf.org
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70C683A1553; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 07:47:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip@ietf.org, detnet-chairs@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org, Ethan Grossman <eagros@dolby.com>, eagros@dolby.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.23.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <160692402637.11206.9329606236693711643@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 07:47:06 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/8S6CrgLKrKemZf63SWkEIlc3xZ8>
Subject: [Detnet] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-07: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 15:47:15 -0000

Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip-07: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-over-udp-ip/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So there might be something missing here in regards to zero-checksum in UDP
when using IPv6. So Section 3.1 in RFC 7510 discusses this for MPLS over UDP
and have some considerations that needs to be done if one are intending to use
zero checksum. To me it appears that DETNET flows can not be guaranteed to
always fulfill these, and in case you think you can motivate it should probably
be stated explicitly and normatively allow it. So if it can't be guaranteed to
fulfill these requirements then the next question exists: Do the possibility to
use zero-checksum for this flow become something the control plane needs to
signal it?