[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text

From: Dino Farinacci <dino at cisco.com>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>
Cc: "lisp at ietf.org" <lisp at ietf.org>, Margaret Wasserman <mrw at sandstorm.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:40:20 -0700
In-reply-to: <tsliqg2spwv.fsf at mit.edu>
References: <643940D7-D234-4E67-BC5E-F5DF3D078D83 at cisco.com> <4A9C3A57.2010501 at joelhalpern.com> <04DC887D-C635-4D58-9E93-4959148B4480 at cisco.com> <C86C96FE-FE3C-4106-8CB5-E50EEBD81E6A at sandstorm.net> <tsliqg2spwv.fsf at mit.edu>

My personal preferences are
1) Joel's text with Margaret's updates saying receivers SHOULDverify checksums
2) Joel's text with typo corrections
3) Margaret's short text above with the additional of "LISP ITRs MAYsend a zero checksum"
4) Margaret's text  in the thread about closing issues #9, #10 and #12

How about Joel and Margaret get together and write the text and I willinclude it. Provided it is detailed and accurate enough. Joel's textwas not specific enough to implement from.


Dino

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text
  - From: Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text
  - From: Sam Hartman

References:
- [lisp] Deadline for proposed changes to draft-ietf-lisp-04.txt is Friday Sep 4th
  - From: Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text
  - From: Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text
  - From: Dino Farinacci
- Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text
  - From: Margaret Wasserman
- Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text
  - From: Sam Hartman

Prev by Date: Re: [lisp] Meanign of R bit
Next by Date: Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text
Previous by thread: Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text
Next by thread: Re: [lisp] Suggested UDP checksum text
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.