Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-04: (with COMMENT)

"Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 11 October 2012 11:14 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-04: (with COMMENT)
Message-ID: <20121011111424.6375.61972.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 04:14:24 -0700
Cc: 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums@tools.ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org
Precedence: list

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-04: No Objection

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




----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


- The DCCP-UDP tunnel draft [1] says you MUST have a non-zero
UDP checksum. Does that conflict with this or need to be called out
as an exception? (And if so, does anything else?)

   [1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap/

- Ought 6man-udpzero be a normative reference? Seems odd to say
this "requires" that (top of p7) but for the referred thing to
be informative and an informational RFC. Is all the right text
in the right places?

- The secdir review [2] suggested calling more stuff out to
application developers, which seems worth considering.

   [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg03555.html

Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man… Stephen Farrell