Joel,

> On Aug 15, 2019, at 7:00 AM, Joel Halpern <joel.halp...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> Bob was going to engage Alissa in a conversation.  Bob, have you gotten 
> anywhere?  I think she may be on vacation.

I sent Alissa some proposed text, but got back what I interpreted as a vacation 
email.   I note there is an IESG call a week from today, so I suspect we will 
hear back next week.

Bob


> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Bonica <rbon...@juniper.net>
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 9:59 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>; Alissa Cooper 
> <ali...@cooperw.in>; Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com>
> Cc: Joel Halpern <joel.halp...@ericsson.com>; 
> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; int-area <int-area@ietf.org>; IESG 
> <i...@ietf.org>; intarea-chairs <intarea-cha...@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on 
> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Has anyone proposed text that:
> 
> a) satisfies Alissa's request
> b) satisfies the WG
> 
> If not, do we believe that such text could possibly exist?
> 
>                                              Ron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 8:55 PM
> To: Alissa Cooper <ali...@cooperw.in>; Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com>
> Cc: Joel Halpern <joel.halp...@ericsson.com>; 
> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; int-area <int-area@ietf.org>; IESG 
> <i...@ietf.org>; intarea-chairs <intarea-cha...@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on 
> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> On 07-Aug-19 12:11, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>> 
>>> On Aug 6, 2019, at 5:41 PM, Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:30 PM Alissa Cooper via Datatracker
>>> <nore...@ietf.org> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_ie
>>>> sg_statement_discuss-2Dcriteria.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0
>>>> UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF2EfpHcAwrDThKP
>>>> 8&m=IUZsPOprgYi_5nBSPGeqNCLb8LwDMKCxRNeEBfcUZ5c&s=c7tAk-Lfr6pcQSMn1x
>>>> 1tdfjkQsL8F_NryIiq3caZ26k&e= for more information about IESG DISCUSS
>>>> and COMMENT positions.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>>> https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=9735801d-cbbf54dc-9735c086-863d9b
>>>> cb726f-ce87e2cc217e1c5e&q=1&u=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.co
>>>> m%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__datatracker.iet
>>>> f.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dintarea-2Dfrag-2Dfragile_&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh
>>>> 63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=Fch9FQ82sir-BoLx84hKuKwl-AWF
>>>> 2EfpHcAwrDThKP8&m=IUZsPOprgYi_5nBSPGeqNCLb8LwDMKCxRNeEBfcUZ5c&s=lb6u
>>>> 0SVhJIFnTV7TdqeLiDBfadRxJkAxNEDqOvFqhyQ&e=
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>> 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Reply via email to