Subject: Re: [lisp] #12: Not Checking Inbound Non-Zero Checksums not Universally Implemented.

From: "lisp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:33:01 -0000

#12: Not Checking Inbound Non-Zero Checksums not Universally Implemented.
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter:  mrw@…               |        Owner:                 
    Type:  technical           |       Status:  closed         
Priority:  major               |    Component:  draft-ietf-lisp
Severity:  -                   |   Resolution:  fixed          
Keywords:  UDP checksums       |  
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Changes (by hartmans-ietf@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 See #9 for the consensus call made 15 September 2009 on the UDP issues.
 Note, however, that the subject of the consensus call on the UDP related
 issues explicitly did not call out #12 in the set of issues being resolved
 there.
 That was because after the UDP issues were opened, Margaret Wasserman made
 a proposal to close #9, #10 and #11; while the text adopted was not the
 same as the proposal, it was definitely an outshoot of that discussion.

 My understanding when I made the September 15 consensus call was that
 Margaret believed #12 was still open because the question of how to
 handle IPv6 stacks that will reject 0 inbound UDP checksums was not
 handled.

 My belief in writing the September 15 message is that the working
 group was aware of this issue when discussing these issues, but that
 the discussion had not really focused around this issue.  So, my
 intent was to leave this issue open in case someone wanted to discuss
 the broken receiver case in the future, while understanding that
 someone starting that discussion would need to have something new to
 add to the discussion that was not part of the first go-round.  They
 would also need to take into account the previous consensus call.

 However, reading the text of #12 now, #12 does not actually talk about
 the specific problem that a V6 receiver might not have a mechanism to
 ignore 0 UDP checksums.  So, I think the best thing to do is to close
 this issue noting that someone may end up bringing up the broken
 receiver case again.  This message is not a call for that discussion
 nor an attempt to restart any thread about UDP checksums!  I believe
 that parties contemplating opening such a discussion should carefully
 consider whether it would be productive before doing so.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/lisp/trac/ticket/12#comment:1>
lisp <http://tools.ietf.org/lisp/>
LISP WG document issues