Fred, > On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:33 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> > wrote: > > Why was this section taken out: > >> 1.1. IP-in-IP Tunnels >> >> This document acknowledges that in some cases, packets must be >> fragmented within IP-in-IP tunnels [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]. >> Therefore, this document makes no additional recommendations >> regarding IP-in-IP tunnels.
This text in the Introduction was removed because, as noted in Warren Kumari Comment (2019-08-07 for -15), this didn’t need to be in the introduction, and it didn’t say very much that isn’t described later in the document. The normative text in Section 5.3. "Packet-in-Packet Encapsulations” is unchanged. I think Section 5.3 covers the topic. It includes the reference to [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]. Bob > > Tunnels always inflate the size of packets to the point that they may exceed > the path MTU even if the original packet is no larger than the path MTU. And, > for IPv6 the only guarantee is 1280. Therefore, in order to robustly support > the minimum IPv6 MTU tunnels MUST employ fragmentation. > > Please put this section of text back in the document where it belongs. > > Thanks - Fred > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch >> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 7:06 AM >> To: Alissa Cooper <ali...@cooperw.in> >> Cc: Joel Halpern <joel.halp...@ericsson.com>; >> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-frag...@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; The IESG >> <i...@ietf.org>; >> intarea-cha...@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on >> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT) >> >> 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 >>> <nore...@ietf.org> 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 >>> Int-area@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> Int-area@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
