UDP Checksum Complement in the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
draft-ietf-ippm-checksum-trailer-06

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2016-02-09)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS point.

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-02-03 for -05)
No email
send info
3.2.3, 2nd paragraph: "...OWAMP/TWAMP layer SHOULD treat the
   Checksum Complement as part of the Packet Padding."

The previous paragraph said this put no new requirements on the receiver. Is the SHOULD here a new requirement, or a statement of fact? (If the latter, it should not use the 2119 keyword.)

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-02-03 for -05)
No email
send info
This document lacks sufficient justification for why the checksum trailer is needed. I would suggest a brief description of when this approach is needed.

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-11-29 for -05)
No email
send info
Al morton did the ops dir review.

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -05)
No email
send info