Bob, > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 9:10 AM > To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> > Cc: Bob Hinden <[email protected]>; Joe Touch <[email protected]>; > Alissa Cooper <[email protected]>; Joel Halpern > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; IESG <[email protected]>; intarea- > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on > draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT) > > Fred, > > > On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:33 AM, Templin (US), Fred L > > <[email protected]> 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].
While I agree that both passages supply a working vector to 'intarea-tunnels', the two strike very different tones. The former gives a balanced citation, while the latter calls it a "corner case" - twice! Whether we like it or not, fragmentation and encapsulation will continue to be associated with each other no matter what gets documented here. So, a respectful handoff to 'intarea-tunnels' would be appreciated. Fred > 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 7:06 AM > >> To: Alissa Cooper <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Joel Halpern <[email protected]>; > >> [email protected]; [email protected]; The IESG > <[email protected]>; > >> [email protected] > >> 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 > >>> <[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 _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
