Stewart,
For example IPv6 has the assumption (for integrity reasons) that UDP will have a checksum. IPv4 is acrostic on that and frequently sets CS = 0 and yet the draft seems to be silent on the consequences.
The draft states clearly that translation complies with RFC7915, which covers the UDP zero checksum issue explicitly. You are of correct that other issues _might_ appear during deployment, but this is only asking for Informational status, although there could be an argument for going directly to BCP. (Note to authors: an Implementation Status section would have made it easier to reply to Stewart!) Regards/Ngā mihi Brian Carpenter On 25-Jun-26 03:34, Stewart Bryant via Datatracker wrote:
Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay Title: Framework for Multi-domain IPv6-only Underlay Network and IPv4-as-a-Service Reviewer: Stewart Bryant Review result: Ready with Issues I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-23 Reviewer: Stewart Bryant Review Date: 2026-06-24 IETF LC End Date: 2026-06-22 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: I am reviewing from a GENART perspective and with this perspective I think the text of the draft should reassure me that this unconditionally works for any legitimate IPv4 protocol stack and any legitimate operation of that protocol stack. The draft adequately describes how an IPv4 packet is sent and delivered over an IPv6 network at the network layer but IPv4/6 hosts have assumptions about the network they are using at other layers of the protocol stack and there is no in-depth exploration of the wider considerations. Hopefully these are addressed in other similar mechanisms that I did not have time to explore, but I think the general reader should be reassured in the body of the text. Major issues:The draft has covered ICMP by asserting the presence of a stateless translator, but I cannot but worry that the are a lot of other assumptions built into an IPv4 protocol stack that may surface during deployment. For example IPv6 has the assumption (for integrity reasons) that UDP will have a checksum. IPv4 is acrostic on that and frequently sets CS = 0 and yet the draft seems to be silent on the consequences. I wonder if the draft needs to be experimental until there is operational experience with the method. Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments:There seems to be a minor confusion between Network Operator and Network Provider in the text that needs examining. "service continuity after IPv4 address exhaustion, network operators (NPs). I assume this is just a typo.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
