UDP Checksum Complement in the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) and Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)
RFC 7820

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

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Deborah Brungard) No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (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) No Objection

(Alissa Cooper) (was Discuss) No Objection

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

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

Comment (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.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

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

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection