On 2/24/2015 10:19 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Joe,
...
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).
RFC2473 is about generic packet tunneling over IPv6 (not IPv4).
Mea culpa; I got the discussion threads mixed up.
RFC2473 is about IP* and other protocols over IPv6.
This doc is about GRE as both payload inside IPv6 and carrier of IPv6.
As a carrier of IPv6, this doc has nothing to do with RFC2473.
As payload inside IPv6, it does related to the general procedures in
RFC2473, but because it is specific to GRE and RFC2473 never mentions
GRE specifically, IMO it need not UPDATE that doc; it can exist in
parallel to it, in a sense, as one of the carried protocols.
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*.
This document is going for proposed standard so, as Ron inferred, they are
trying to document "what is and what will forever be".
What is and forever will be - a snapshot of what is currently deployed.
When we do document what is deployed, we need to avoid addressing how to
fix those issues, though.
If the document is suggesting a long-term solution (which it seems to be,
according to Ron), then it needs to address how to fix the issues.
That isn't what his last messages indicated; the focus is as a
standards-track snapshot of what is deployed AFAICT.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
