As far as I can tell (as a mostly observer who is now shepherding this
document) the working group seemed very reluctant to get too specific
about what were or were not constrained environments where fragmentation
might (reasonably?) be expected (or not expected) to work.
I fear that trying to get more specific would open a complex discussion
which might well never converge.
Yours,
Joel
On 8/6/2019 8:11 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Aug 6, 2019, at 5:41 PM, Tom Herbert <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:30 PM Alissa Cooper via Datatracker
<[email protected]> wrote:
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for writing this document.
Section 6.1 says:
"Developers MAY develop new protocols or applications that rely on IP
fragmentation if the protocol or application is to be run only in
environments where IP fragmentation is known to be supported."
I'm wondering if there should be a bit more nuance here to make the
recommendation clearer. Do we think there is a case where an application
protocol developed in the IETF will be known to only run in environments where
fragmentation is supported? If we don't think developing such a protocol would
be in scope for the IETF, then I'm wondering if that case should be called out
explicitly with a stronger normative requirement.
Alissa,
Are you distinguishing between protocol development and application
development?
I’m specifically wondering about application protocols (as distinct from other
protocols) developed in the IETF (as distinct from developed elsewhere).
Sometimes we use BCPs to guide future work in the IETF specifically, and it
seemed to me that in that specific slice — IETF-developed application protocols
— we may be able to make a stronger recommendation since we can’t be sure of
the environment in which any given application protocol would be deployed (I
think, but would be open to arguments otherwise).
Thanks,
Alissa
For instance, as written the requirements would allow a
UDP application developer to send 64K datagrams which might work
perfectly fine and be the best solution in their environment that they
know properly supports fragmentation.
Tom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 3.8.2: If there is any chance we think this situation might improve
before this RFC-to-be gets obsoleted one day, I might suggest:
s/The security policy described above is implemented incorrectly on
many consumer CPE routers./The security policy described above has been
implemented incorrectly on many consumer CPE routers./
Section 3.9: s/Another recent study/Another study/
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
