Hi David; Jonathan and I agree with your proposal so we included it and published 15.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-15 Thanks again for your help. Russ and Lars: Do you think that 1 also addresses your DISCUSS? Thanks a bunch you all, Pascal http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7011357/ > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 12:46 AM > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-14.txt > > Hi Pascal, > > I apologize for the delayed response. I think the -14 version of the draft > has > the UDP checksum issue under control, but I have one more edit that I'd like > to see (in essence, I want to see an important area of forbidden behavior > actually prohibited by an RFC 2119 "MUST NOT" statement). > > Section 4.3.2: > > The Upper Layer MAY only provide the authorization in the following > cases: > > "MAY only" doesn't get the job done wrt RFC 2119. Rather than editing that > text, I suggest leaving it in place and adding the following sentence after > the > descriptions of the two cases: > > The Upper Layer MUST NOT provide the authorization when neither > of the above two cases applies. > > > Aside from that one minor edit, the draft looks good, and the near-doubling > in size of Section 4.3.2 is indicative of the care and attention that has been > devoted to dealing with this issue (thanks). You're welcome to add my name > to the Acknowledgements section if you think that's appropriate. > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > [email protected] Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 3:09 AM > > To: Russ Housley; The IESG; Black, David; [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; > > [email protected] > > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-13.txt > > > > Dear reviewers: > > > > Thanks to the discussions with David, Lars, Carsten and Russ, the > > authors published a draft 14 (see > > attached) that hopefully covers the issues raised: > > > > - preventing misdirection of packets with compressed UDP checksum > > - inappropriate focus on L4 security > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-14.txt > > > > Could you please check the new text or more specifically the diffset: > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-14 > > > > Thanks for all, > > > > Pascal > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Russ Housley [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:55 PM > > > To: The IESG > > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf- > > > [email protected] > > > Subject: Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-13: (with > > > DISCUSS) > > > > > > Russ Housley has entered the following ballot position for > > > draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-13: Discuss > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > > > DISCUSS: > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > > > > > > > > > The Gen-ART Review by David Black on 17-Jan-2011 lead to a discussion > > > about the use of checksums with UDP. This discussion does not seem to > > > be over. The last thing that I saw was: > > > > > > I'm still unhappy since the text allows a middle point to recomputed > > > the checksum which then might be delivered erroneously to the wrong > > > IP or port. This was done to ensure that a packet that flows on the > > > Internet would 'look right' to middle boxes and end points. It is > > > probably OK for most 802.15.4 cases since L2 security is almost > > > always on and protects the frames a lot better than 2 octets of > > > checksum. But if there's no security at work, it would probably be > > > better to let the packet go with a zero checksum and add some text > > > on authorizing that an arbitrary end point. > > > > > > This discussion needs to reach a resolution before this document is > > > approved. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
