[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Syslog-sec] -transport-udp, section 4.4 - UDP checksums

To: <syslog-sec@employees.org>
Subject: [Syslog-sec] -transport-udp, section 4.4 - UDP checksums
From: "Rainer Gerhards" <rgerhards@hq.adiscon.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:08:28 +0200
Cc:
Delivered-to: archive-syslog-sec@lists.adiscon.com
Delivered-to: syslog-sec@employees.org
List-archive: <http://tng.employees.org/pipermail/syslog-sec>
List-help: <mailto:syslog-sec-request@www.employees.org?subject=help>
List-id: syslog-sec.www.employees.org
List-post: <mailto:syslog-sec@www.employees.org>
List-subscribe: <http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec>, <mailto:syslog-sec-request@www.employees.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec>, <mailto:syslog-sec-request@www.employees.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: syslog-sec-bounces@www.employees.org
Thread-index: AcRUY8yrs7bX0wTLR6mYVQjIDd3avQ==
Thread-topic: -transport-udp, section 4.4 - UDP checksums

WG,

section 4.4 demands UDP checksums in all cases (which means on IPv4,
too). I am in doubt if all IPv4 stacks support UDP checksums (e.g.
minimalistic stack in embedded device). So I propose that we just
recommend them, but not demand them.


Rainer
_______________________________________________
Syslog-sec mailing list
Syslog-sec@www.employees.org
http://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog-sec

Follow-Ups:
- RE: [Syslog-sec] -transport-udp, section 4.4 - UDP checksums
  - From: "Anton Okmianski" <aokmians@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: [Syslog-sec] -transport-udp, section 4.4 - UDP RFCs
Next by Date: RE: [Syslog-sec] -transport-udp, section 4.4 - UDP checksums
Previous by thread: [Syslog-sec] -transport-udp, section 4.4 - UDP RFCs
Next by thread: RE: [Syslog-sec] -transport-udp, section 4.4 - UDP checksums
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread