Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksum-02>

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Tue, 08 May 2012 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088C521F85D7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 00:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.134
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J23PIDHF7RXK for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 May 2012 00:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AEC221F848B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 May 2012 00:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7b76ae0000063d8-5d-4fa8cb45ad80
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) (using TLS with cipher AES128-SHA (AES128-SHA/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 80.6B.25560.54BC8AF4; Tue, 8 May 2012 09:29:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 8 May 2012 09:29:09 +0200
Message-ID: <4FA8CB45.1020309@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 09:29:09 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksum-02>
References: <036E1A9D-88D9-4B1B-A7B1-FF4A624C5E13@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <036E1A9D-88D9-4B1B-A7B1-FF4A624C5E13@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: "draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums@tools.ietf.org>, "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 07:29:12 -0000

Hi,

I know the WG last call has closed. But I reviewed it anyway and I have
found some nits and things which the WG chairs anyway will stumble on in
their ID checklist processing of the document. I also have some more
substantial comments on how this is written. I am sorry that I am late,
but I simple missed the WG last call.

I do support this document going forward but I do think it needs to be
updated prior to submission to the AD.

1) Abstract contains bracketed references. I would suggest replacing
RFC2460[RFC2460] with the documents title and RFC number without brackets.

2) Document header does not contain "Updates:RFC2460"

3) Section 1, " RFC 2460[RFC2460], " I think this should be "Internet
Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification [RFC2460],"

4. Section 5
     "However, some protocols, such as lightweight tunneling
      protocols that use UDP as a tunnel encapsulation, MAY omit
      computing the UDP checksum of the encapsulating UDP header and set
      it to zero, subject to the constraints described in
      [I-D.ietf-6man-udpzero]."

I am a bit worried about making [I-D.ietf-6man-udpzero] part of the
specification text. Especially something that I at least consider being
normative definition of constraints. Those I think should be part of
this document. I think the pointers earlier in the document is
sufficient to establish that part of the inclusion of the constraints in
this document are based on whats in our document.

5. Section 6. "It is now 2011." Can the authors confirm if there has
been no more analysis and maybe indicate the current year.

In general when I read this document it reads to much like a discussion
paper rather than a normative specification. I think it is late in the
process and do not require any changes now. However, I have raised this
earlier (on the 00 wg version) and the authors have not addressed this.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------