IMO, it belongs back with a forward reference to the detail.
To do otherwise buries at least part of the lead here - as you note in
another response - to not mistake this document for a step towards
deprecation.
Joe
On 2019-09-04 10:57, Fred Baker wrote:
> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
>
> It was taken out in response to Warren Kumari's comment that it was out of
> place and already covered in a section later in the document. If it is added
> back in, it probably belongs in that section, not the introduction.
>
> On Sep 3, 2019, at 5:33 PM, 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.
> 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
