Subject: [Tsvwg] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-lite-00.txt

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 12:57:09 +0200 (EET)

Not on the list, so please keep Cc:.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
> 	Title		: The UDP Lite Protocol
> 	Author(s)	: L. Larzon, M. Degermark
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-lite-00.txt
> 	Pages		: 8
> 	Date		: 25-Jan-02

Just a note: there is no "total length" field in IPv6 header (consider
e.g. a case where there is an extension header before UDP-lite), but it
this is discussed in RFC2460, and hopefully this is enough.  The draft
seems a bit "IPv4" -centric though.

A few typos/etc.:

   insensitive part.  For a link layer that supports partial error
   detection, the Coverage field in the UDP Lite header MAY be used as a
   
==> Checksum Coverage

   use. Most strong encryption transforms today exhibit this behaviour, 
   for good reason.  It might be possible to develop encryption

==> 'for a good reason' ?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg