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

On Aug 13, 2009, at 4:54 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:

> Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>>> "Lars" == Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> writes:
>>    Lars> Hi, yes, because RFC2460 says "MUST use always" and the
>>    Lars> intent here is to loosen that restriction for LISP and AMT.
>>    Lars> (And I'm sure Noel will again call this "red-tape legalese",
>>    Lars> but the fact is that this change revises the standing IETF
>>    Lars> consensus, and there's a process for that.)
>> Something that apparently isn't obvious to some WG participants who
>> have contacted me off-list is that it is quite possible to change an
>> IETF consensus.  When Margaret, Lars and I talk about doing things
>> like updating RFC 2460, we're not talking about what we think should
>> be a obstruction once we've done the work to decide what the right
>> technical direction is.
>> We've all been on the IESG and are used to these sorts of updates  
>> as a
>> routine matter of IETF business.
>> In the simplest case, you're talking about writing a potentially  
>> short
>> draft that updates the spec in question.  You then find the
>> appropriate AD or working group to sponsor the draft and go through
>> the normal process.
>> Yes, you do actually have to build consensus.  For some updates,
>> that's easy, for others it is very difficult.  That's how we all
>> convince each other that we actually have thought things through and
>> come to the right decision.
>
> Finally a point that is appropriate to the 6man mailing list...  
> There are two proposals on the table to do just that (modify the  
> handling of UDP as defined in 2460).  The discussion should be on  
> the tradeoffs of those two proposals.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-00 proposes  
> allowing UDP to have a zero checksum in certain conditions (i.e.,  
> outer checksum is zero as long as there is an encapsulated UDP  
> checksum that is valid).
>

We envision draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-00, should it
go through, as explicitly updating RFC2460 and the next version will  
reflect this.

Regards
Marshall

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fairhurst-6man-tsvwg-udptt-01  
> proposes a "checksum per flow" approach that is applicable for UDP  
> tunneled inside of UDP.
>
> The chairs of 6MAN would like to here feedback on these drafts as  
> they apply to the problem spaces raised (AMT, v4/v6 translators, and  
> LISP).
>
> Regards,
> Brian
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>