Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: Yes
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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for this document. Among other helpful things, it includes the most clear and memorable description of the distinction between PMTUD and PLPMTUD that I've heard yet, which I expect I will even be able to remember for the next time I need it. Section 2.1 Each link is constrained by the number of bytes that it can convey in a single IP packet. This constraint is called the link Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU). Whlie the end-to-end Path MTU is the size of a single IPv4 header, IPv4 [RFC0791] requires every link to support at least a specified MTU (see NOTE 1). IPv6 [RFC8200] I don't understand what "the end-to-end Path MTU is the size of a single IPv4 header" means nit: s/Whlie/While/ Section 3.2 It might be worth another sentence to codify that sending the fragments of a message to different next hops will end poorly. Section 3.8.1 The effect of rate limiting may be severe, as RFC 4443 recommends strict rate limiting of IPv6 traffic. nit: s/IP/ICMP/ Section 4.1 nit: s/User Data Protocol/User Datagram Protocol/ Section 4.2 nit: s/is sufficiently small is sufficiently small/is sufficiently small/ _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
