Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5

Tony Li <tli@cisco.com> Fri, 15 September 1995 16:54 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16725; 15 Sep 95 12:54 EDT
Received: from [132.151.1.1] by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16721; 15 Sep 95 12:54 EDT
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15203; 15 Sep 95 12:54 EDT
Received: from greatdane.cisco.com by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-22) id <AA04446>; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 09:25:04 -0700
Received: (tli@localhost) by greatdane.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/8.6.5) id JAA18889; Fri, 15 Sep 1995 09:24:52 -0700
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 09:24:52 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <199509151624.JAA18889@greatdane.cisco.com>
To: kasten@ftp.com
Cc: fred@cisco.com, craig@aland.bbn.com, rreq@isi.edu
In-Reply-To: <9509151234.AA00951@mailserv-D.ftp.com> (kasten@ftp.com)
Subject: Re: RFC 1812, section 4.2.2.5

    > I'll also point out that interpretation 1 is inconsistent with the
    > design of IPv6.

   router requirements -- 1812 -- explicitly does not apply to ip6 in any
   way, shape, or form.

Of course.  However, having IPv4 and IPv6 with completely inconsistent
design criteria simply indicates SOME semblance of irrationality on
behalf of the IETF.

Either a) the header checksum is important, in which case
interpretation 1 makes sense and IPv6 has a design flaw, xor b) the
header checksum is unimportant in which case interpretation 2 is
perfectly acceptable, and IPv6 is fine.

I prefer my irrationality in Monty Python sketches, please.

Tony