On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 1:57 PM Fred Baker <[email protected]> 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.
I was summoned... My comment was: "2: I'm unclear why IP-in-IP tunnels are called out at the top / in the Introduction. There is a whole section (Packet-in-Packet Encapsulations) where I think it would go better -- I see no harm in having people have to read down to there to note this." It would be a disservice if someone looked at this document, saw the text in the introduction, and then stopped reading.... W > > > 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 > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
