Subject: [lisp] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-16: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 21:18:45 -0700

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lisp-gpe-16: 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 https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-gpe/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I found the requirements in Section 4.3.1 (IPv6 zero checksum) quite onerous
and can’t help but wonder if it’s worth the complexity, or just that people
already have it implemented in hardware.

This seems like a very useful extension for LISP.

s/octet/octet

s/payolads/payloads

---

From: "Fabio Maino (fmaino)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 23:42:38 +0000

Thanks for your comments, Martin. Please see below. 

On 7/6/20, 9:18 PM, "Martin Duke via Datatracker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[FM] There was quite a lot of discussion in the WG around this, and the "MAY" use UDP zero check sum text seem to have reached some consensus that allows implementors to make an informed decision. 

    s/octet/octet

    s/payolads/payloads

[FM] typos are now fixed in rev-17. 

Thanks,
Fabio