Hi Joe, Can't get to it just now, but I promise I will respond to these as early as possible. About this particular question, you may know that I hold Bob B. in the highest esteem and took his word on this subject as I would a voice from the heavens.
I know Bob probably pulls his pants on one leg at a time in the morning just like we all do, but his long tenure as RFC Editor and authorship of bedrock docs like RFC1122 have held me in awe of him. That is not to say that I do not have high regards for you (I do) but to me Bob has always been "the man". I know - I need to get over that and move on... Thanks - Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Touch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 11:52 AM > To: Templin, Fred L <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-05.txt > > Hi, Fred, > > Circling back to this item: > > > On 3/29/2017 2:18 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > One other comment. I agree with figures 12 and 13 but (and I think this is > > a crucial point) I think they need a supporting sentence or two explaining > > why the procedure is "fragment then encapsulate" and not "encapsulate > > then fragment". > Will do. > > > This is the difference between tunnel fragmentation > > and ordinary outer fragmentation, where your document is correctly > > advocating tunnel fragmentation. > Yeah, but I was unable to find definitive and RFC citations for those > terms ("inner fragmentation" and "outer fragmentation"). 4459 mentions > fragmentation of 'inner' and 'outer', but those terms go back to 2003 > and before, and I'm not sure warrant a citation. > > > To the best of my knowledge, this was > > first documented in Section 3.1.7 of RFC2764 and should be cited as such. > > At least, that is what Bob B. suggested to me about 10yrs ago. > The idea of differentiating inner and outer fragmentation goes back to > RFC2003 at least, AFAICT. > > That section of RFC2764 mentions that outer fragmentation avoids > fragmentation inside the tunnel, but doesn't recommend it (it just says > "alternative"). Further, it claims that none of the existing tunneling > protocols support this (even though RFC2003 does). > > I'm not convinced this is worth tracking down for its origins. Let me > know if you feel otherwise, but we'd need stronger evidence AFAICT. > > Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
