Thank you Brian. Experimental is another possibility I wondered about, but either way you address my immediate concern.
Best regards Stewart > On 25 Jun 2026, at 02:19, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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]
