Hi Ron, > -----Original Message----- > From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:40 AM > To: Joe Touch; Templin, Fred L; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > Joe, > > Because RFC 2784 is PS, and this document UPDATES the procedures defined in > RFC 2784, we have no choice but to ask for PS. (You > can't UPDATE a PS with INFORMATIONAL). > > So, I guess we have no choice other than to discuss what should be. > > Please make your case that what we have in draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 is not > what should be.
The case is already made that the PTB messages this document relies on can be lost or forged, resulting in a black hole or degenerate MTUs. So what should be is correct continuous operation even when PTB messages are lost or forged. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > > Ron > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:24 PM > > To: Templin, Fred L; Ronald Bonica; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > > > > > > > On 2/24/2015 9:20 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > > Hi Ron, > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Ronald Bonica [mailto:[email protected]] > > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 9:13 AM > > >> To: Joe Touch; Templin, Fred L; [email protected] > > >> Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6 > > >> > > >> Joe, > > >> > > >> The latter. The following is text from the draft: > > >> > > >> " This document specifies GRE procedures for IPv6, used as either the > > >> payload or delivery protocol. It updates RFC 2784 [RFC2784]. Like > > >> RFC 2784, this specification describes GRE how has been implemented > > >> by several vendors." > > > > > > You are asking for Proposed Standards status. That goes beyond > > > documenting just "what is", and specifies once and for all "what will > > > forever > > be". > > > > This document will forever be "what is currently commonly used". > > > > We've been around the block on "let's describe what SHOULD be, but isn't > > deployed". While I agree that's important, that is not the function of this > > document. > > > > Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
