Subject: Ralph Droms' No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ralph Droms" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 06:47:28 -0700

Ralph Droms has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-06: 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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In section 4.1, is there a reference to the "proposal to simply ignore
the UDP checksum value on reception at the tunnel egress" that can be
cited to give more background?

In section 4.2.1, "The methods that ignores the checksum has an
additional downside" needs to be plural or singular throughout.

The first paragraph of section 5 tells me it identifies requirements
for protocols carried without UDP checksum.  Section 5.1 talks only
about "zero checksum"; does the proposal to ignore the checksum at the
tunnel egress also fit here?  Also, stylistically, I think the section
header for 5.1 can simply be dropped.

In section 5.1, I can't parse out what list item 5 is trying to
convey.  What is the "tunnel layer" and is it always recommended and
required for some tunnel mechanisms?