Re: [16NG] [nwg-chair] NWG feedback on 16ng's IPv4 CS draft

[Wesley George <[e-mail]>]

I can appreciate that approach. I didn't really consider that we might be 
reinventing the wheel. *blush*
I think a reference to some issues that the implementor should be aware 
of is better than no mention of them so probably since the below is still 
in draft, the RFC is better than nothing.

Thanks,
Wes

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, gabriel montenegro wrote:
>> For example, one could think of referring interested readers to:
>>  
>> MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the-Network Tunneling
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4459 
>> But I don't even know if that is the more appropriate text one would want 
>> to point at.
>> I'm cc-ing the author, Pekka Savola, as he may have some more current info 
>> for us.
>
> In developing a protocol, I personally think the protocol specification 
> should decide a model to be adopted either in the protocol or in operating 
> the protocol, or just explicitly leave the issue open. RFC4459 just lists 
> some alternatives and their tradeoffs.
>
> Apart from that there isn't much to add.  There's a bit more recent 00 draft 
> that also discusses tunnels from an architectural and less practical 
> perspective, but I'm not sure if it provides any more information than the 
> RFC above: draft-touch-intarea-tunnels-00.
>
>
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings