[tsvwg] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-zero-checksum-10: (with COMMENT)

[Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-zero-checksum-10: 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 https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-zero-checksum/



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

# Internet AD comments for draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-zero-checksum-10
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

### S7

* Should (SHOULD?) there be a section about considerations for the TAPS API?

### S9

* Is a DoS attack possible via a downgrade attack style mechanism?

  I.e., if a sender does not include this option but an on-path attacker
  is able to inject it, I suppose the worst that happens is that incorrectly
  zero-valued checksum packets are dropped all over the place.

  Nevertheless, is such a thing possible?