[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP

On Apr 22, 2010, at 3:50 AM, <L.Wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <L.Wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


section 3.3 of the draft and its use of UDP as UDP-lite -- despite UDP-lite being given a different protocol number because consensus was that messing with UDP checksum and length fields in this way was not compatible with established UDP implementation use - makes me very very uneasy. (The earlier phelan draft had a hack around using a UDP zero checksum, which is arguably worse.) This draft cannot go forwards. Or it should use UDP-lite. This is a workgroup draft? Seriously? Section 5 of RFC3828 and tsvwg experience indicates why this is a bad idea. Is expedience more important?

Some others have made this comment, too, so I think this is something that should be changed before the draft moves forward.

None of the drafts in question are final yet, so I think the discussion and the subsequent decision should be based on the merits/ disadvantages of the overall approaches, rather than the current state of the drafts. Although I'm sure the authors will appreciate all detailed comments on their drafts as well.

- Pasi

[Kernel List]     [Linux DCCP]     [IETF Annouce]     [Linux Networking]     [Git]     [Security]     [Linux Assembly]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [DDR & Rambus]     [Linux Resources]

Powered by Linux