On Jun 15, 2012, at 10:54 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Joe Touch wrote: > >>>> That is not an innocent action. > >>> It is a fair action by innocent providers. > >> It is a violation of standards. They may do it innocently, but it's >> still a violation. > > You misunderstand standardization processes.
Standards remain so until revoked explicitly. Common use does not itself revoke a standard - it can also represent either operator error or ignorance. That decision has not yet been made for ignoring the DF bit - if you want to make that case, you need to take it through the IETF process to obsolete the existing standards. > Moreover, there already is a change, RFC4821-stype PMTUD. 4821 neither updates nor obsoletes 1191. It provides an alternative, which is (AFAIK) not widely used either. >>> 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. >> >> That is not the focus of this document. Again, we don't create a new >> requirement. > > Your draft reduces existing requirements to make RFC1191-style > PMTUD more harmful. It does not change existing requirements that the DF bit should not be ignored. >> If you feel there is consensus to raise this change, that >> would be a separate issue. > > Do you think there is explicit consensus on your draft that > we should make RFC1191-stype PMTUD more harmful? If you have a specific example of how this draft makes 1191 PMTUD more harmful, please explain. Merely restating existing requirements on preservation of the DF bit does not. >>>> It also violates RFC 791 and 1121. >>> >>> To stop the fair violation, obsolete RFC1191. >> >> The steps needed to allow DF clearing need to be determined; I don't >> know what they are, but that's outside the scope of this doc. > > Your draft has too much to do with RFC1191-stype PMTUD and > is narrowly scoped to make RFC1191-stype PMTUD more harmful, > which means it is in scope. The draft neither mentions nor discusses 1191. If you want to update existing standards regarding PMTUD, you should write that doc. >> You seem to think that this is OK because they have good reasons. That >> may make their actions acceptable, but it will not make them compliant >> *until* someone updates the standards that require the DF not be >> cleared. This is not that document. > > Once RFC1191 is obsoleted, your draft becomes almost useless > because no one will follow the rate limitation requirement of > your draft. You can make that case in the doc that obsoletes 1191 if you like. This entire issue is out of scope of this document, though. Joe
