Subject: [tsvwg] TSVWG Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-udpzero

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:09:07 -0000

This message starts a two week TSVWG Working Group on advancing:

         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

         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-udpzero/

This document is intended to be published as BCP via the 6MAN WG.

This last call is being done given the number of changes
and the time since the earlier last calls.  The changes were discussed at the
Atlanta IETF 6man & TSVWG sessions.  The authors believe these changes
will resolve the
open IESG Discusses.  Our AD will start a concurrent IETF last call as well.

Substantive comments and statements of support for advancing this document
should
be directed to the tsvwg or 6man mailing list.  Editorial suggestions can
be sent to the
authors.  This last call will end on 26 December 2012.

James, David & Gorry
TSVWG Co-Chairs.

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:20:08 +0100

Hi,

I do hope we will get some reviews from TSVWG. But I would like to point
out that the target is Standards Track.

I also would recommend that you take a look at the document implementing
the change in the IPv6 Specification also after having reviewed
draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-08:

The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 and UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets'
  <draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-06.txt> as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-12-25. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   This document provides an update of the Internet Protocol version 6
   (IPv6) specification (RFC2460) to improve the performance in the use
   case when a tunnel protocol uses UDP with IPv6 to tunnel packets.
   The performance improvement is obtained by relaxing the IPv6 UDP
   checksum requirement for suitable tunneling protocol where header
   information is protected on the "inner" packet being carried.  This
   relaxation removes the overhead associated with the computation of
   UDP checksums on IPv6 packets used to carry tunnel protocols.  The
   specification describes how the IPv6 UDP checksum requirement can be
   relaxed for the situation where the encapsulated packet itself
   contains a checksum.  The limitations and risks of this approach are
   described, and restrictions specified on the use of the method.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums/ballot/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

-- 

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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:47:45 +0100

Hi all. I have read draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-06.txt. I support it.

Only these comments (I hope they are useful):

- Although the difference between "tunneling packet" and "tunneled packet"
is clear, I think something similar could be done when talking about
"tunneling protocols". The document sometimes talks about "tunnel protocols"
and other times about "tunneling protocols". Perhaps the term could be
unified.

Sentences which could be improved:

- " These different examples each help to significantly reduce the
likelihood that a corrupted inner tunneled packet is finally delivered to a
protocol listener that can be affected by the packet." Sounds very
complicated, IMHO.

- "similar effects that reduce the likelihood that an mis-delivered packet
are delivered." Could say " similar effects that reduce the likelihood that
a mis-delivered packet is delivered."

- " A corruption will commonly only effect the single packet, not
established protocol state." Could say "A corruption will commonly affect a
single packet, not the established protocol state."

- " Tunnel protocols encapsulating IP this will generally be safe," could
say "In tunnel protocols encapsulating IP, this will generally be safe,"

A small typo:

- "Corruption of the address information in an encapsulating packets," could
say " Corruption of the address information in an encapsulating packet"

Best regards,

Jose Saldana

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de
> Magnus Westerlund
> Enviado el: jueves, 13 de diciembre de 2012 10:20
> Para: [email-masked]
> CC: [email-masked]
> Asunto: Re: [tsvwg] TSVWG Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-
> udpzero
> 
> Hi,
> 
final
> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of
> the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> 
> > This last call is being done given the number of changes and the time
> > since the earlier last calls.  The changes were discussed at the
> > will resolve the open IESG Discusses.  Our AD will start a concurrent
> > IETF last call as well.
> >
> > Substantive comments and statements of support for advancing this
> > document should be directed to the tsvwg or 6man mailing list.
> > Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors.  This last call will
> > end on 26 December 2012.
> >
> > James, David & Gorry
> > TSVWG Co-Chairs.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Magnus Westerlund
>