On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:56 AM Fernando Gont <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 8/8/19 00:58, Warren Kumari via Datatracker wrote: > > Warren Kumari 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: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > It's very seldom that I ballot Yes on a document for which I'm not the > > Responsible AD, but this is important enough that I'm doing so; > > unfortunately > > there are are some bits which make me uncomfortable though, and so I spent a > > while in the unusual situation of trying to decide between DISCUSS and YES - > > after looking at the author list and responsible AD I'm sure that my > > comments > > will be considered, and so I'm balloting Yes. > > > > 1: "Legacy protocols that depend upon IP fragmentation SHOULD be updated to > > remove that dependency." I really don't like the SHOULD here -- while I > > fully > > agree that legacy protocols should be update, the RFC2119 usage feels weird > > - > > it's unclear exactly who it is aimed at (everyone? the people who wrote the > > legacy protocols? some mythical cleanup author?) > > The tricky bit here is that throughout the document we employ RFC2119 > language to quote requirements from other RFCs, while in this specific > case we use caps to stress that this is the advice we are giving out. > > FWIW, the advice hopefully triggers work for any protocols expected to > work across the Internet, and that currently rely on fragmentation. > Fernando,
As the document highlights the problems of fragmentation are caused by nonconformant middlebox implementations. There is nothing inherently wrong with the fragmentation and end hosts don't a problem with it. IMO, this is just one example of (some) middleboxes arbitrarily breaking end to end protocols. I am hopeful that document will also trigger work to start fixing fix broken middlebox implementations. Tom > -- > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: [email protected] > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
