[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [MBONED] Fwd: WGLC for <draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-08.txt> - UDP checksum?
Hi (As TSV AD),
A follow up on my previous WG last call comment regarding the UDP
checksum. I still expect that someone changes the RFC 2460 rule
regarding the checksum before progressing this document with the current
text. Someone needs to write a document that updates RFC 2460 and
explains when it is okay to use a 0 UDP checksum with IPv6. That
document should be targeted at the 6man WG.
So I would suggest that the ones interested in seeing this document
progress starts writing that draft. You already have lost 8 months that
could have seen this issue almost finished.
I intended to ballot a discuss in regards to this issue unless
addressed. I already talked to Jari Arkko(INT AD) about this issue From mboned-bounces at ietf.org Mon Aug 4 09:20:51 2008
Return-Path: <mboned-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mboned-archive at lists.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mboned-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1FD23A6CEC;
Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: mboned at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F4593A6A33
for <mboned at core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.470, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35,
J_CHICKENPOX_53=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id PhcYmKalmeIH for <mboned at core3.amsl.com>;
Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (mailgw3.ericsson.se [193.180.251.60])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F423A6978
for <mboned at ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1])
by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id
A662820545; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:21:16 +0200 (CEST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-af89ebb00000193b-11-48972c7c6817
Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.124])
by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id
8A2522052A; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:21:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by
esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:21:16 +0200
Received: from [147.214.183.47] ([147.214.183.47]) by
esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:21:16 +0200
Message-ID: <48972C7C.90708 at ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:21:16 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com>
References: <474BD15B.1020800 at erg.abdn.ac.uk>
<08B4640A-1CF4-42C3-BBAF-3DAA7DE3B375 at multicasttech.com>
In-Reply-To: <08B4640A-1CF4-42C3-BBAF-3DAA7DE3B375 at multicasttech.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Aug 2008 16:21:16.0145 (UTC)
FILETIME=[1E9B8610:01C8F64E]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAAÌ: mboned at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Fwd: WGLC for
<draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-08.txt> - UDP checksum?
X-BeenThere: mboned at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>,
<mailto:mboned-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>,
<mailto:mboned-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
Sender: mboned-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: mboned-bounces at ietf.org
Hi (As TSV AD),
A follow up on my previous WG last call comment regarding the UDP
checksum. I still expect that someone changes the RFC 2460 rule
regarding the checksum before progressing this document with the current
text. Someone needs to write a document that updates RFC 2460 and
explains when it is okay to use a 0 UDP checksum with IPv6. That
document should be targeted at the 6man WG.
So I would suggest that the ones interested in seeing this document
progress starts writing that draft. You already have lost 8 months that
could have seen this issue almost finished.
I intended to ballot a discuss in regards to this issue unless
addressed. I already talked to Jari Arkko(INT AD) about this issue and
he From mboned-bounces at ietf.org Mon Aug 4 09:20:51 2008
Return-Path: <mboned-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mboned-archive at optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mboned-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1FD23A6CEC;
Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: mboned at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mboned at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F4593A6A33
for <mboned at core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.119
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.119 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[AWL=-0.470, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35,
J_CHICKENPOX_53=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id PhcYmKalmeIH for <mboned at core3.amsl.com>;
Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (mailgw3.ericsson.se [193.180.251.60])
by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F423A6978
for <mboned at ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw3.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1])
by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id
A662820545; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:21:16 +0200 (CEST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3c-af89ebb00000193b-11-48972c7c6817
Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.124])
by mailgw3.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id
8A2522052A; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:21:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by
esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:21:16 +0200
Received: from [147.214.183.47] ([147.214.183.47]) by
esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:21:16 +0200
Message-ID: <48972C7C.90708 at ericsson.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:21:16 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com>
References: <474BD15B.1020800 at erg.abdn.ac.uk>
<08B4640A-1CF4-42C3-BBAF-3DAA7DE3B375 at multicasttech.com>
In-Reply-To: <08B4640A-1CF4-42C3-BBAF-3DAA7DE3B375 at multicasttech.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Aug 2008 16:21:16.0145 (UTC)
FILETIME=[1E9B8610:01C8F64E]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAAÌ: mboned at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Fwd: WGLC for
<draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-08.txt> - UDP checksum?
X-BeenThere: mboned at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mail List for the Mboned Working Group <mboned.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>,
<mailto:mboned-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/mboned>
List-Post: <mailto:mboned at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mboned-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned>,
<mailto:mboned-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
Sender: mboned-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: mboned-bounces at ietf.org
Hi (As TSV AD),
A follow up on my previous WG last call comment regarding the UDP
checksum. I still expect that someone changes the RFC 2460 rule
regarding the checksum before progressing this document with the current
text. Someone needs to write a document that updates RFC 2460 and
explains when it is okay to use a 0 UDP checksum with IPv6. That
document should be targeted at the 6man WG.
So I would suggest that the ones interested in seeing this document
progress starts writing that draft. You already have lost 8 months that
could have seen this issue almost finished.
I intended to ballot a discuss in regards to this issue unless
addressed. I already talked to Jari Arkko(INT AD) about this issue and
hand
he agrees that the proposed solution of updating RFC 2460 in 6MAN seems
the most appropriate. The reason for me intending to ballot a discuss is
that you are breaking a normative statement for the underlying
technology you are using. In addition this is a general problem for
tunnel mechanisms and changes needs to go through the consensus process
and get community input before being approved.
This is your second, "no late surprises", warning.
Cheers
Magnus Westerlund
IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287
Färögatan 6 | Fax +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
agrees that the proposed solution of updating RFC 2460 in 6MAN seems
the most appropriate. The reason for me intending to ballot a discuss is
that you are breaking a normative statement for the underlying
technology you are using. In addition this is a general problem for
tunnel mechanisms and changes needs to go through the consensus process
and get community input before being approved.
This is your second, "no late surprises", warning.
Cheers
Magnus Westerlund
IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287
Färögatan 6 | Fax +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
e agrees that the proposed solution of updating RFC 2460 in 6MAN seems
the most appropriate. The reason for me intending to ballot a discuss is
that you are breaking a normative statement for the underlying
technology you are using. In addition this is a general problem for
tunnel mechanisms and changes needs to go through the consensus process
and get community input before being approved.
This is your second, "no late surprises", warning.
Cheers
Magnus Westerlund
IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB | Phone +46 8 4048287
Färögatan 6 | Fax +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund at ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
MBONED at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned