Joe Touch wrote:
>> After thinking more about the draft, I think it is
>> purposelessly hostile against innocent operators and
>> end users who are suffering between people filtering
>> ICMP and people insisting on PMTUD.
>>
>> Today, innocent operators often clear DF bit and
>> end users are happy with it, because, today, probability
>> of accidental ID match is small enough.
> That is not an innocent action.
It is a fair action by innocent providers.
> It defeats PMTUD, which is a draft
> standard.
So, the proper thing for IETF to do is to obsolete RFC1191.
There is no reason for IETF to ignore operational feedback
from the real world that RFC1191 is a bad idea.
> It also violates RFC 791 and 1121.
To stop the fair violation, obsolete RFC1191.
> This document only restates existing requirements in this regard,
>> Originating sources MAY set the IPv4 ID field of atomic datagrams
to any value.
is not a restatement of existing requirements.
> stating them in 2119-language. It does not create any new requirement.
> Operates that clear the DF bit are already in violation of three
> standards-track RFCs.
That many operators are actively violating the standard track
RFCs means the standard track RFCs are defective.
>> Then, end users may actively act against PMTUD and/or IETF.
>
> I disagree; if they wanted to do so, they already would have acted since
> the requirements already exist, albeit in pre-RFC2199 language.
As your draft actively tries to change the current situation
that:
>> Today, innocent operators often clear DF bit and
>> end users are happy with it, because, today, probability
>> of accidental ID match is small enough.
it is not surprising if end users think you are guilty.
Masataka Ohta
