On 07-Aug-19 12:11, 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).
fwiw, I agree with what I think Alissa is saying. Unless we actually *implement* a mechanism to define and support limited domains (draft-carpenter-limited-domains) protocol designers cannot safely make assumptions such as "fragmentation works". Maybe this paragraph needs to be more of a health warning than a somewhat dubious RFC2119 statement. At least, "should not ... unless" might be a better formulation than "MAY ... if". Brian _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
