Hi, On 2009-7-30, at 22:22, Noel Chiappa wrote:
From: Lars Eggert <lars.egg...@nokia.com>This is in direct conflict with what RFC2460 says, and I'd personally would find it problematic to approve publication of an Experimental protocol that did this, unless there was an IETF consensus on astandards-track document that would update RFC2460 accordingly. Such a document would IMO need to show extremely strong arguments for why thischange is needed.This is for an inter-router packet carriage use, not end-end. Why the dickens should there be a mandatory checksum on the data in the packet for sending apacket from one router to another?
Since we're up-levelling the discussion, I don't understand why one would use UDP as a router-router protocol in the first place, especially for IPv6, where the chance that the packet will hit a NAT are probably exactly zero.
What I'm saying is that *if* UDP us used, it needs to be used according to the RFCs that capture the IETF consensus on their use, or the IETF consensus must be revised.
Lars
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
