Subject: Re: [MBONED] Fwd: WGLC for <draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-08.txt> - UDP checksum?

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:21:16 +0200

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 [email-masked]  Mon Aug  4 09:20:51 2008
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:21:16 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
To: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Fwd: WGLC for
 <draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-08.txt> -	UDP checksum?
Sender: [email-masked]

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 
hagrees 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: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email-masked]
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: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:46:59 -0400

Hi Magnus,
      Jari Arkko and I talked about this before leaving Dublin.  Since I 
am one of the people supporting the advancement of this document and a 
co-chair of the 6man WG, I am planning on putting together a draft 
relaxing the checksum rules for UDP in IPv6.

Regards,
Brian

Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> he agrees that the proposed solution of updating RFC 2460 in 6MAN seems 
> This is youFrom [email-masked]  Tue Aug  5 11:46:45 2008
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:46:59 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
To: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Fwd: WGLC for
 <draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-08.txt> -	UDP checksum?
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi Magnus,
      Jari Arkko and I talked about this before leaving Dublin.  Since I 
am one of the people supporting the advancement of this document and a 
co-chair of the 6man WG, I am planning on putting together a draft 
relaxing the checksum rules for UDP in IPv6.

Regards,
Brian

Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> he agrees that the proposed solution of updating RFC 2460 in 6MAN seems 
> This is yr second, "no late surprises", warning.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
> 

our second, "no late surprises", warning.

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 15:02:23 -0400

I would be glad to work with you on this.

Note that this will have wider applicability than just AMT.

Marshall

On Aug 5, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:

> Hi Magnus,
>    Jari Arkko and I talked about this before leaving Dublin.  Since  
> I am one of the people supporting the advancement of this document  
> and a co-chair of the 6man WG, I am planning on putting together a  
> draft relaxing the checksum rules for UDP in IPv6.
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>
>
> Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> Hi (As TSV AD),
>> 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.
>> progress starts writing that draft. You already have lost 8 months  
>> that could have seen this issue almost finished.
>> addressed. I already talked to Jari Arkko(INT AD) about this issue  
>> and he agrees that the proposed solution of updating From [email-masked]  Tue Aug  5 12:02:08 2008
From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
To: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 15:02:23 -0400
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Fwd: WGLC for
	<draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-08.txt> -	UDP checksum?
Sender: [email-masked]

I would be glad to work with you on this.

Note that this will have wider applicability than just AMT.

Marshall

On Aug 5, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:

> Hi Magnus,
>    Jari Arkko and I talked about this before leaving Dublin.  Since  
> I am one of the people supporting the advancement of this document  
> and a co-chair of the 6man WG, I am planning on putting together a  
> draft relaxing the checksum rules for UDP in IPv6.
>
> Regards,
> Brian
>
>
> Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> Hi (As TSV AD),
>> 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.
>> progress starts writing that draft. You already have lost 8 months  
>> that could have seen this issue almost finished.
>> addressed. I already talked to Jari Arkko(INT AD) about this issue  
>> and he agrees that the proposed solution of updatinRFC 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.

g 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.