Last Call Review of draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-04
review-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-04-genart-lc-yee-2012-10-03-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>

Document: draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-04
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: Sep-30-2012
IETF LC End Date: Oct-2-2012
IESG Telechat date: Oct-11-2012

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
should be fixed before publication. [Ready with nits.]

Presuming the assumptions in I-D.ietf-6man-udpzero are valid and agreed to
by the community, this document
provides an update to 2460 to allow the use of zero checksum UDP packets
over IPv6 in certain cases involving
protocols tunneled inside of UDP packets.

Nits:

General: references throughout the document to various Internet Drafts will,
of course, need to be cleaned up.

General: a comma after "e.g." is preferred in American English.

Abstract, last sentence: "defines" -> "define"

Section 3, first sentence: "tunnelled" -> "tunneled"
	Change the comma after "checksum" to a period to split the sentence,
capitalizing the following "there".
	Then change "compute" -> "computing" and "check" -> "checking" for
parseability.

Section 3, last sentence: "cost, " -> "cost".

Section 4, 4th paragraph: "The below" -> "The points below"
	Also: "an UDP" -> "a UDP"

Section 4, 1st bullet item, last sentence: "reception UDP" -> "reception of
UDP"

Section 4, 4th bullet item, 1st sentence: "port, destination" -> "port, and
destination"
	Also: "fields :" -> "fields:" (eliminate a superfluous space
character)

Section 5, paragraph 5 (the replacement text), last sentence: you refer to
RFC 2460.  That
would seem to read oddly when the replacement text is actually inserted into
RFC 2460.
I think it would be preferable to put in a specific cross-reference to where
in 2460 the
existing method resides instead of the document itself.

Section 5, item 2, last sentence: "call," -> "call"

Section 5, item 5, 1st sentence: "UDP Tunnels" -> "UDP tunnels" for
consistency.

Section 5, item 6, 2 occurrences: "Non-IP" -> "non-IP"

Section 5, item 8, parenthetical: " Necessary" -> "necessary".  Note the
leading space before
"Necessary" that is omitted in the replacement.

Section 8 includes one incredibly long run-on sentence.  I would suggest
splitting it as follows:

However, this does not lead to any significant new vulnerabilities as
checksums are not a
security measure and can be easily generated by any attacker. Properly
configured tunnels
should check the validity of the inner packet and perform any needed
security checks
regardless of the checksum status. Most attacks are generated from
compromised hosts
which automatically create checksummed packets (in other words, it would
generally be
more, not less, effort for most attackers to generate zero UDP checksums on
the host).

Authors' Addresses:
Unused Fax and URI fields may be omitted.
Phone numbers  should be presented in international dialing format to
facilitate use, e.g.,
+1 703 501 4376 and +46 10 714 82 87.