Skip to main content

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

Yes

(Spencer Dawkins)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Terry Manderson)

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

Alvaro Retana
No Objection
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -04)

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2016-02-09)
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS point.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2016-02-03 for -05)
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2016-02-03 for -05)
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-11-29 for -05)
Al morton did the ops dir review.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)

                            
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -05)