Thanks for your comments, Martin. Please see below.
On 7/6/20, 9:18 PM, "Martin Duke via Datatracker" <[email protected]> wrote:
Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-16: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I found the requirements in Section 4.3.1 (IPv6 zero checksum) quite onerous
and can’t help but wonder if it’s worth the complexity, or just that people
already have it implemented in hardware.
[FM] There was quite a lot of discussion in the WG around this, and the "MAY"
use UDP zero check sum text seem to have reached some consensus that allows
implementors to make an informed decision.
This seems like a very useful extension for LISP.
s/octet/octet
s/payolads/payloads
[FM] typos are now fixed in rev-17.
Thanks,
Fabio
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
