Re: [lisp] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15

"Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch> Thu, 30 August 2018 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@trammell.ch>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00707127332; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 09:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yT_66TSxQ2SB; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 09:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gozo.iway.ch (gozo.iway.ch [IPv6:2001:8e0:40:325::36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AC76127148; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 09:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gozo.iway.ch (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id CABE7340E9F; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 18:15:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ACF/6030.27802); Thu, 30 Aug 2018 18:15:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from switchplus-mail.ch (switchplus-mail.ch [212.25.8.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gozo.iway.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 18:15:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from nb-10604.ethz.ch (account ietf@trammell.ch [82.130.102.91] verified) by switchplus-mail.ch (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.18) with ESMTPSA id 65768774; Thu, 30 Aug 2018 18:15:40 +0200
From: "Brian Trammell (IETF)" <ietf@trammell.ch>
Message-Id: <F55F5E0D-77E2-4D12-A547-708F6AC16369@trammell.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_86D4EE7B-B203-4944-A793-944718DEB8DF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 18:15:40 +0200
In-Reply-To: <60047CB6-2F13-4BE7-BCF0-4108479B569C@GMAIL.COM>
Cc: draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis.all@ietf.org, tsv-art@ietf.org, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org list" <lisp@ietf.org>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
References: <153538054829.30074.15428909912816972228@ietfa.amsl.com> <ED34F830-1FEF-42BB-BB6E-805D724AB339@gmail.com> <79FA52C8-94AC-43CE-B052-9F921A65E0D5@trammell.ch> <23680BD5-0DD3-4404-888D-D1C78A0A437D@gmail.com> <130902C2-9CEE-4931-8957-D32446723B89@trammell.ch> <CF5E3C7B-E492-4EE9-A2E6-A2D823C6610F@gmail.com> <1514B576-87FD-475F-B6C5-BBA1C2CA94ED@trammell.ch> <CE7ECD23-E8A2-4D48-B752-0D246C02F27E@gmail.com> <FBA13CF2-8E44-46DA-AB5D-9082B5288F05@trammell.ch> <5E2CBC85-87FF-48DC-950B-403E6E8E14BF@gmail.com> <C4425CD6-B44D-479A-819A-BEFCC83E9E33@gmail.com> <B466126A-DBE8-4088-AC93-F7D49C534ABE@trammell.ch> <E76EB141-5D80-4131-AB42-4DB326348B00@gmail.com> <FD414B30-ED12-4BEC-94FB-737FB1AAECA1@trammell.ch> <60047CB6-2F13-4BE7-BCF0-4108479B569C@GMAIL.COM>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/kYRQTqH62tsetQT_3WSIOl7Oq_o>
Subject: Re: [lisp] [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-15
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 16:15:44 -0000

From my side, yes. Thanks a lot for your quick responses on this!

Cheers,

Brian

> On 30 Aug 2018, at 18:09, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the great discussion Brian. I think we’re all in sync now?
> 
> Dino
> 
>> On Aug 30, 2018, at 8:46 AM, Brian Trammell (IETF) <ietf@trammell.ch> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 30 Aug 2018, at 16:55, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 30, 2018, at 2:57 AM, Brian Trammell (IETF) <ietf@trammell.ch> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> hi Dino,
>>>> 
>>>> Almost. How about:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> OLD:
>>>> 
>>>> When the UDP and LISP headers require integrity protection, the
>>>> methods of using UDP checksums in [RFC8085] can be considered.
>>>> 
>>>> NEW:
>>>> 
>>>> Implementors are encouraged to consider UDP checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085]. Specifically, when the UDP, LISP, and outer IPv6 headers require protection against corruption, the use of non-zero UDP checksums is RECOMMENDED.
>>> 
>>> Well if we recommend it and when describing the UDP header in the packet format section we don’t that woudl be a contracdiction.
>> 
>> I think my point here is that the packet format section probably shouldn't do that. :) Yes, I understand the disconnect between the reality of the situation and the
>> 
>>> And note the IPv6 outer header cannot be protected with a UDP checksum. The link-layer CRC will do that.
>> 
>> Eh, this makes assumptions about the underlying link layer's corruption characteristics that may not hold. But yeah, for most packets in most realistic situations this is the case, and I guess we've learned to live with the underlying phy error rate * 1e-10 in any case.
>> 
>>> NEWNEW:
>>> 
>>> Implementors are encouraged to consider UDP checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when
>>> it is desirable to protect UDP and LISP headers against corruption.
>>> 
>>> What do you think?
>> 
>> This seems like a fine compromise to me.
>> 
>> Thanks, cheers,
>> 
>> Brian
>> 
>>> 
>>> Dino
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tsv-art mailing list
>>> Tsv-art@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
>> 
>