Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-04: No Objection
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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - The DCCP-UDP tunnel draft [1] says you MUST have a non-zero UDP checksum. Does that conflict with this or need to be called out as an exception? (And if so, does anything else?) [1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dccp-udpencap/ - Ought 6man-udpzero be a normative reference? Seems odd to say this "requires" that (top of p7) but for the referred thing to be informative and an informational RFC. Is all the right text in the right places? - The secdir review [2] suggested calling more stuff out to application developers, which seems worth considering. [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg03555.html -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
