Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I found this paragraph in Section 3.1 to be hand-wavy: "Note that this specification allows using different MTUs in different links. If an implementation requires use of the same MTU on every one of its links, and a new node with a smaller MTU is added to the network, a renegotiation of one or more links can occur. In the worst case, the renegotiations could cascade network-wide. In that case, implementers need to assess the impact of such phenomenon." What are the consequences of link "renegotiation"? If every MTU downgrade results in a storm of messages, that's a bad property. Is the use case where the MTU must be the same on all links an important one? If not, simply requiring hosts to handle this case seems way cleaner. _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
