Hi Carlos, > One approach is to add a 3.c) to the list that Ron shared. I think there is > another potential approach to your initial comment: > we could note that for a tunneling protocol (GRE), this is equivalent to the > relaxation of the UDP checksum in RFC 6935, and keep the existing text.
It’s not that simple (I wish it was). The short summary is RFC 6935 does not set a precedent that can just be cited - in particular a single sentence pointing to RFC 6935 to say “therefore this is ok” is likely to garner multiple IESG Discuss positions for not explaining why, sorry (Lucy and I are in the midst of working through this for GRE-in-UDP). For the long version, please start with Section 3.1 of the MPLS-in-UDP draft (in AUTH48 at the RFC Editor): http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-in-udp-11#section-3.1 Section 3.2 is also applicable, but much shorter and reasonably straightforward by comparison. Thanks, --David From: Lucy yong [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 3:48 PM To: Lucy yong; Carlos Pignataro (cpignata); Black, David Cc: Ronald P. Bonica; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 Hi Carlos, I am not clear what you propose here. UDP checksum includes IP header, GRE checksum does not. Regards, Lucy From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 2:01 PM To: Black, David; Lucy yong Cc: Ronald P. Bonica; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Start of WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 Hi, Lucy, One approach is to add a 3.c) to the list that Ron shared. I think there is another potential approach to your initial comment: we could note that for a tunneling protocol (GRE), this is equivalent to the relaxation of the UDP checksum in RFC 6935, and keep the existing text. Fred, RFC 2473 does not mention checksums. Thanks, Carlos.
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
