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 <email@example.com>; 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 <firstname.lastname@example.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
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Intemail@example.com https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area