Fred, > On Apr 17, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Templin (US), Fred L > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Bob, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 9:38 AM >> To: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> >> Cc: Bob Hinden <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Tunnels and Fragmentation >> >> Fred, >> >>> On Apr 16, 2020, at 2:36 PM, Templin (US), Fred L >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, two important documents in this wg have been sitting idle for a long >>> time and >>> perhaps it is time to start moving them forward again. The documents are: >>> "IP >>> Fragmentation Considered Fragile", and "IP Tunnels in the Internet >>> Architecture": >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile/ >> >> This doc is in the RFC Editor queue waiting for another document, it’s not >> “sitting idle". It is essentially done. The referenced >> document (draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud) looks like it was approved >> by the IESG recently, it’s state is "Approved- >> announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed”. Should be done >> soon. > > Hold the phone. We now have a robust and useful case for IPv6 fragmentation > when > applied to tunnels. Can we still update frag-fragile before it gets > published? Or, do we > have to wait and update it *after* it gets published? I would prefer before, > because > allowing to publish as-is with knowledge that an important update is coming > just > perpetuates the undeserved bad name given to fragmentation 33 years ago.
In my view, no it can not be updated. It is past AUTH48. We would never publish anything if we wait for anything that might happen in the future. > > Also, what about intarea-tunnels? That one shows up as expired, but shouldn't > we > dust it off for publication too (after updating to accommodate new findings)? > > I can’t speak to that, as I am not an author. Bob > >> Bob >> >> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels/ >>> >>> What has changed is that we now have a spec for robust fragmentation over >>> tunnels >>> while supporting a 9180 MTU (actually MRU) plus lossless path MTU >>> discovery. The >>> spec is known as the Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) Interface: >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-omni-interface/ >>> >>> So, what I think needs to happen is for authors of the two intarea drafts >>> to review >>> the OMNI spec and update their documents accordingly. Then, maybe we can get >>> a few docs published? >>> >>> Thanks - Fred >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
