Subject: Re: [MBONED] Progressing the AMT draft

From: Leonard Giuliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 12:54:30 -0800

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Dino Farinacci wrote:

-) > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Tom Pusateri wrote:
-) > > I'm concerned that AMT is going to rejected by the security guys (they've
-) > > rejected everything we've sent them) so I want to find out what is the
-) > > cause of rejection and being working on it.
-) > 
-) > FWIW, I support Tom's original suggestion, and I could also support
-) > Toerless's alternative version b).
-) > 

I think I agree with the Toerless-b/Tom approach.  Let's add a discussion 
about no-checksums and just get the AMT draft out the door.  Seems like a 
minor issue to be stuck on for this long, and I don't see it changing 
anytime soon.  Use a "may" or whatever we need to get it past the goalie, 
but let's just get AMT done.

-) > IETF and IESG review _could_ (and in all likelyhood, will) find issues in
-) > the rest of the spec and it would be useful to root those out now.
-) 
-) What we did with LISP is put a MAY in the spec. Maybe that is a compromise
-) position.
-) 
-) > Even if the spec doesn't end up changing and we go forward with the
-) > checksum as mandatory, vendors could just very earily not implement IPv6
-) > version of AMT if they don't want/can't do that.
-) 
-) That message sends a precedent that IPv6 is not important enough as IPv4.
-) 

Uh, reality already said that.  Wait, did I just type that out loud?

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:43:54 +0200 (EET)

Could the chairs judge rough consensus on this issue and/or iterate in 
order to get to a resolution?

---

From: Leonard Giuliano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:22:43 -0800

Sounds good, Pekka.

My understanding is that the null-checksum issue will probably not incur 
any less scrutiny if we soften the wording or try as 
experimental/informational.  So Toerless' alternatives will probably not 
gain anything over just leaving the draft as-is.

So going back to Tom's original suggestion, please respond with your 
thoughts on the following 2 options for the AMT spec to help determine 
rough consensus: 

a) Status quo.  Wait for null UDP checksum in IPv6 to be permitted.  This 
has been the WG agreed-upon path for at least a year and the resolution of 
null checksums in IPv6 is likely still at least a few IETFs away.

b) Change the current AMT draft to require the UDP checksum to be 
calculated and submit it to the IESG. Get their feedback on other changes 
that need to be made in order to proceed the draft to a proposed standard. 
Make all the necessary changes needed and go back and forth with the IESG 
getting the draft exactly like it needs to be.  If by then, the checksum 
issue is worked out, we can make the change to the draft. If not, we can 
decide at that time how to proceed.

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Pekka Savola wrote:

-) Could the chairs judge rough consensus on this issue and/or iterate in order
-) to get to a resolution?
-)

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:27:59 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Leonard Giuliano
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:23 PM
> To: Pekka Savola
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Marshall Eubanks
> Subject: Re: [MBONED] Progressing the AMT draft
> 
> 
> Sounds good, Pekka.
> 

I guess between those two, I'd be forced to say (b).
What I understood as the original proposal, which I would prefer, is:

(c) Same as (b), but in addition write another document that would
    Update/Obsolete the original RFC if the checksum issue isn't 
    worked out by time of publication of the original RFC.

-Dave

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:04:20 +0200 (EET)

> decide at that time how to proceed.

If it wasn't already obvious, I support b).  I'm also OK with Dave 
Thaler's suggested c) as long as writing the other document doesn't 
delay this one.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:40:26 -0800

> Thaler's suggested c) as long as writing the other document doesn't 

I support b too. It's been held up far too long,

Stig