Hi,
On 2011-1-18, at 20:41, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
I'm still unhappy since the text allows a middle point to recomputed the
checksum which then might be delivered erroneously to the wrong IP or port.
This was done to ensure that a packet that flows on the Internet would 'look
Hi Lars,
On 2011-1-18, at 20:41, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
I'm still unhappy since the text allows a middle point to recomputed
the
checksum which then might be delivered erroneously to the wrong IP or
port.
This was done to ensure that a packet that flows on the Internet
would
-Original Message-
From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthub...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:36 AM
To: Lars Eggert; Dan Wing (dwing)
Cc: The IESG; david.bl...@emc.com; gen-art@ietf.org; 6lowpan-
cha...@tools.ietf.org; draft-ietf-6lowpan...@tools.ietf.org
I think the new text is much better.
I think the open question on checksum recomputation is whether there are enough
MUST and MUST NOT requirements in the new text to sufficiently ensure that
any recomputed checksum is computed on data that was integrity-protected via
other means across the
Hi Lars and David:
After the first round, the text would now look like this:
4.3.2. Compressing UDP checksum
The UDP checksum operation is mandatory with IPv6 [RFC2460] for all
packets. For that reason [RFC4944] disallows the compression of the
UDP checksum.
With this
