On Aug 13, 2009, at 4:54 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
Sam Hartman wrote:
"Lars" == Lars Eggert <[email protected]> writes:
Lars> Hi, yes, because RFC2460 says "MUST use always" and the
Lars> intent here is to loosen that restriction for LISP and AMT.
Lars> (And I'm sure Noel will again call this "red-tape legalese",
Lars> but the fact is that this change revises the standing IETF
Lars> consensus, and there's a process for that.)
Something that apparently isn't obvious to some WG participants who
have contacted me off-list is that it is quite possible to change an
IETF consensus. When Margaret, Lars and I talk about doing things
like updating RFC 2460, we're not talking about what we think should
be a obstruction once we've done the work to decide what the right
technical direction is.
We've all been on the IESG and are used to these sorts of updates
as a
routine matter of IETF business.
In the simplest case, you're talking about writing a potentially
short
draft that updates the spec in question. You then find the
appropriate AD or working group to sponsor the draft and go through
the normal process.
Yes, you do actually have to build consensus. For some updates,
that's easy, for others it is very difficult. That's how we all
convince each other that we actually have thought things through and
come to the right decision.
Finally a point that is appropriate to the 6man mailing list...
There are two proposals on the table to do just that (modify the
handling of UDP as defined in 2460). The discussion should be on
the tradeoffs of those two proposals.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-00 proposes
allowing UDP to have a zero checksum in certain conditions (i.e.,
outer checksum is zero as long as there is an encapsulated UDP
checksum that is valid).
We envision draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-00, should it
go through, as explicitly updating RFC2460 and the next version will
reflect this.
Regards
Marshall
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fairhurst-6man-tsvwg-udptt-01
proposes a "checksum per flow" approach that is applicable for UDP
tunneled inside of UDP.
The chairs of 6MAN would like to here feedback on these drafts as
they apply to the problem spaces raised (AMT, v4/v6 translators, and
LISP).
Regards,
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
