Hi, all,
So let me see if I understand:
Alissa issues a comment.
We discuss this on the list and come to a rare consensus on a way forward.
The new draft is issued that:
a) ignores the list consensus
b) removes a paragraph not under the DISCUSS (1.1)
c) now refers to vague “other documents” without citation
d) most importantly:
REMOVES a key recommendation that we MAY use frag where it works
Asserts the false claim that IP fragmentation “will fail” in the
Internet,
despite citing evidence that the *majority of the time* it does work
e.g., for IPv6, sec 3.9
What happened? Why is a change this substantial not reflecting the *list
consensus*?
Joe
> On Sep 3, 2019, at 5:59 AM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: No Objection
>
> 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
