Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-08.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 00:38:43 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Applicability Statement for the use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums
	Author(s)       : Godred Fairhurst
                          Magnus Westerlund
	Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-08.txt
	Pages           : 37
	Date            : 2012-12-11

Abstract:
   This document provides an applicability statement for the use of UDP
   transport checksums with IPv6.  It defines recommendations and
   requirements for the use of IPv6 UDP datagrams with a zero UDP
   checksum.  It describes the issues and design principles that need to
   be considered when UDP is used with IPv6 to support tunnel
   encapsulations and examines the role of the IPv6 UDP transport
   checksum.  An appendix presents a summary of the trade-offs that were
   considered in evaluating the safety of the update to RFC 2460 that
   updates use of the UDP checksum with IPv6.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-udpzero

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-08

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-08

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:54:24 +0100

WG,

Sorry for not meeting my promise to ensure this was available before the
end of November. The editing and reviewing to get the two documents
consistent took a bit longer than expected.

These updates represent some major changes due to the restructuring into
an applicability statement. This makes the Diff very unsuitable for a
review. So I do hope that a number of the WG members can review both the
documents. We need confirmation that we havne't screwed up something or
changed the document beyond what there be consensus for.

I will note that when making this into a AS we have generalized the
limitations to not be as tunnel specific as they where. So this
definitely needs review. They have also been split into clearer sender,
and receiver node requirements as well as usage requirements.

I will also remind you that these document will need to go through a new
IETF last call due to the intended status change. I believe the
intention is to do this jointly with the WG last call.

Cheers

Magnus

On 2012-12-11 09:38, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
> 
> 

-- 

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------