[ + spud list ]

> On 2. jul. 2015, at 22.07, Black, David <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>>>>> cases where the latter doesn't happen.
>>>> 
>>>> Got it now, sorry for the confusion.
>>>> So I don't really care much about the middlebox behind a NAT on the other
>> side - it's *my* side I care about. The usage examples in the draft refer to
>> talking people in my institution or at the airport where I'm sitting. I don't
>> expect to be (or care about being) able to talk to a middlebox far, far
>> away... chances are, the message is dropped long before anyway.
>>> 
>>> It's a limitation; it might be useful to explain the limitation and why
>>> the remainder is still useful.
>> 
>> ok
> 
> And specify boundaries at which these text messages SHOULD be dropped because
> they are likely to be irrelevant beyond that point.  For the airport or
> university example, this may be where the airport or university network hands
> off to the ISP that provides connectivity to the Internet.

ok


> I also concur with Joel's and Diego's observation that an operator with 
> strongly
> structured procedures (e.g., ticketing system) is going to have some 
> difficulty
> dealing with this sort of problem report, especially as it's unauthenticated -
> the fact that one can get an ICMP packet into the operator's network does not
> automatically entitle one to draw upon the operator's support resources.

This was also said by Diego Lopez - such operators may just not be a suitable 
target for this type of message (rather, smaller ones, then). But "entitle to 
draw upon the resources" is a bit exaggerated when we're talking about sending 
an ascii message. Nobody's obliged to listen to it, after all.

Anyway, I have to say I'm getting some very good feedback here - in particular, 
I like Dan Wing's observation (on the spud list) that applications could 
auto-generate this (e.g. "Tried QUIC but failed UDP, falling back to TCP"); he 
suggested a machine-parsable format but now I wonder how to do this?

All of a sudden, this seems to become more reasonable and make more sense than 
I ever expected   :-)

Thanks!
Michael

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to