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.