[6lo] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09: (with DISCUSS)

Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 23 February 2021 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietf.org
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F02A3A11BF; Tue, 23 Feb 2021 15:55:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh@ietf.org, 6lo-chairs@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org, JADHAV Rahul <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>, rahul.ietf@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.26.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <161412454173.21320.1024712833153341251@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 15:55:42 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/0VD1-gVPp-h_bcTodZL3PV1Hopc>
Subject: [6lo] Martin Duke's Discuss on draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 23:55:42 -0000

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6lo-blemesh-09: Discuss

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:


I found this paragraph in Section 3.1 to be hand-wavy:

"Note that this specification allows using different MTUs in different
   links.  If an implementation requires use of the same MTU on every
   one of its links, and a new node with a smaller MTU is added to the
   network, a renegotiation of one or more links can occur.  In the
   worst case, the renegotiations could cascade network-wide.  In that
   case, implementers need to assess the impact of such phenomenon."

What are the consequences of link "renegotiation"? If every MTU downgrade
results in a storm of messages, that's a bad property. Is the use case where
the MTU must be the same on all links an important one? If not, simply
requiring hosts to handle this case seems way cleaner.