Zero Checksum for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-zero-checksum-09

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-zero-checksum@ietf.org, martenseemann@gmail.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org, zahed.sarker.ietf@gmail.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Zero Checksum for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-zero-checksum-09.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Zero Checksum for the Stream Control Transmission Protocol'
  (draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-zero-checksum-09.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Transport and Services Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Zaheduzzaman Sarker and Francesca Palombini.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-zero-checksum/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   The Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) uses a 32-bit
   checksum in the common header of each packet to provide some level of
   data integrity.  If another method used by SCTP already provides the
   same or a higher level of data integrity, computing this checksum
   does not provide any additional protection, but does consume
   computing resources.

   This document provides a simple extension allowing SCTP to save these
   computing resources by using zero as the checksum in a backwards
   compatible way.  It also defines how this feature can be used when
   SCTP packets are encapsulated in Datagram Transport Layer Security
   (DTLS) packets.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Marten Seemann. The
   Responsible Area Director is Zaheduzzaman Sarker.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note