Tom, > On Sep 3, 2019, at 1:33 PM, Tom Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Bob, > > I agree with Fred. Note, the very first line of the introduction: > > "Operational experience [Kent] [Huston] [RFC7872] reveals that IP > fragmentation introduces fragility to Internet communication”.
Yes, that text in in the first paragraph of the Introduction > > This attempts to frame fragmentation as being generally fragile with > supporting references. However, there was much discussion on the list > about operational experience that demonstrates fragmentation is not > fragile. In particular, we know that fragmentation with tunnels is > productively deployed and has been for quite some time. So that is the > counter argument to the general statement that fragmentation is > fragile. With the text about tunneling included in the introduction I > believe that was sufficient balance of the arguments, but without the > text the reader could be led to believe that fragmentation is fragile > for everyone all the time which is simply not true and would be > misleading. Yes, but we are discussing some text from the Introduction that to my read didn’t say anything useful so I removed it. The substantive text about tunneling in in Section 3.5. The Introduction, is just the introduction. The text was: 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. Why is that more useful than what is in 3.5? If it’s not making a recommendation, why call this out in the introduction. There are lot of other things it doesn’t make recommendations about that aren’t in the Introduction either. Bob > > Speaking of balance, the introduction also mentions that: > > "this document recommends that upper-layer protocols address the > problem of fragmentation at their layer" > > But the "problem" of fragmentation is in intermediate devices that > don't properly handle it as the draft highlights. So it seems like > part of addressing the problem should also be to fix the problem! That > is implementations should be fixed to deal with fragmentation. IMO, > this should be another high level recommendation that is mentioned in > the introduction. I am serving as document editor. This to my understanding has been through w.g. last call and now IESG review. > > Tom > > > > Tom > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 1:01 PM Bob Hinden <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Fred, >> >>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 12:45 PM, Templin (US), Fred L >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >> You are talking about text in the Introduction of the document. >> >> The important substance relating to tunnels is in Section 5.3. The text is: >> >> 5.3. Packet-in-Packet Encapsulations >> >> In this document, packet-in-packet encapsulations include IP-in-IP >> [RFC2003], Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784], GRE-in-UDP >> [RFC8086] and Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 [RFC2473]. [RFC4459] >> describes fragmentation issues associated with all of the above- >> mentioned encapsulations. >> >> The fragmentation strategy described for GRE in [RFC7588] has been >> deployed for all of the above-mentioned encapsulations. This >> strategy does not rely on IP fragmentation except in one corner case. >> (see Section 3.3.2.2 of RFC 7588 and Section 7.1 of RFC 2473). >> Section 3.3 of [RFC7676] further describes this corner case. >> >> See [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] for further discussion. >> >> Seems fine to me, in tone and substance. >> >> Bob >> >> >>> >>> 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
