On 2/24/2015 9:35 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
...
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.
There are two different intertwined issues that need to be teased apart.
First issue is that this document and RFC2473 are in the same boat in terms
of Fragmentation and MTU and the former should therefore cite the latter.
I do agree on this point.
Or, if the former has more to say (e.g., sending PTB with a size less than
1280) then it should also update the latter.
That doesn't follow. This doc is about IPv6; it can surely augment the
basic rules in another PS that describes an IPv4 mechanism without
"UPDATING" that doc (i.e., it need not apply to IPv4).
Second issue is that both documents are susceptible to black holes if
PTB messages are lost.
That may be good to point out, but it does not argue for changing what's
in this doc. We have many protocols that are either incomplete or have
land mines built-in; they are widely deployed and there's nothing wrong
with documenting *what is deployed*.
When we do document what is deployed, we need to avoid addressing how to
fix those issues, though.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
