> On 30 Aug 2018, at 16:55, Dino Farinacci <farinacci@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Aug 30, 2018, at 2:57 AM, Brian Trammell (IETF) <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> hi Dino, >> >> Almost. How about: >> >> >> OLD: >> >> When the UDP and LISP headers require integrity protection, the >> methods of using UDP checksums in [RFC8085] can be considered. >> >> NEW: >> >> Implementors are encouraged to consider UDP checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085]. Specifically, when the UDP, LISP, and outer IPv6 headers require protection against corruption, the use of non-zero UDP checksums is RECOMMENDED. > > Well if we recommend it and when describing the UDP header in the packet format section we don’t that woudl be a contracdiction. I think my point here is that the packet format section probably shouldn't do that. :) Yes, I understand the disconnect between the reality of the situation and the > And note the IPv6 outer header cannot be protected with a UDP checksum. The link-layer CRC will do that. Eh, this makes assumptions about the underlying link layer's corruption characteristics that may not hold. But yeah, for most packets in most realistic situations this is the case, and I guess we've learned to live with the underlying phy error rate * 1e-10 in any case. > NEWNEW: > > Implementors are encouraged to consider UDP checksum usage guidelines in section 3.4 of [RFC8085] when > it is desirable to protect UDP and LISP headers against corruption. > > What do you think? This seems like a fine compromise to me. Thanks, cheers, Brian > > Dino > > _______________________________________________ > Tsv-art mailing list > Tsv-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
