Re: [lisp] Judging Consensus on the UDP Checksum Issue

[Margaret Wasserman <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 12, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Dino Farinacci wrote:

> On Aug 11, 2009, at 8:17 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>> You'd need to word it as an ITR MAY send a zero checksum, an ETR MUST
>> accept a 0 checksum and MAY ignore the checksum completely.  And of
>
> Anyone object to me putting this text in the -04 spec now?

While this doesn't address all of my concerns about the UDP checksum  
handling, I consider this text to be much better than the current  
text, so go ahead and include it.

You should include a normative reference to Marshall's IPv6 zero  
checksum draft after "ITRs MAY send a zero checksum", because you will  
need a normative reference to a standards track RFC that says this is  
an okay thing to do in IPv6.  His draft can be found here:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-00.txt

You should also include a "[Ref Needed]" placeholder, or something  
similar, after "MAY ignore the checksum completely", because you will  
need a normative reference to a standards track RFC that indicates  
that this is an okay thing to do for both IPv4 and IPv6, as well.

Margaret