Return-Path: X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8016FC14F6BC; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:41:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.105 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redbarn.org Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fWMfHoA8vJtH; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from util.redbarn.org (util.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::222]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A1EFC14F686; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 15:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from family.redbarn.org (family.redbarn.org [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cd::5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "*.redbarn.org", Issuer "RapidSSL TLS RSA CA G1" (not verified)) by util.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A944B1A2926; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 22:41:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=redbarn.org; s=util; t=1720132874; bh=Ho1K/zrpMbs9LrDA0r2zcDwN1jejQ2tDYA/9LLaSnfk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=Tyg9A4yEuaDpN9kAUjz6axKgJSmGA/Xa44BZPKFYRGEa0J+AdVG+Bm5/x0aeA5Xbh nX7E+MVZ8B5Mua4QoJRBD00BzPPDJKZJdAIRbAgdE2m/KXAvrJ6jfrBwwo0m3mvi2A BEzjMubl5LzQNSyq+Cy7/dc38g8o2QuqfxoHnTwM= Received: from heater.srcl.tisf.net (heater.srcl.tisf.net [IPv6:2001:559:8000:cc::111]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by family.redbarn.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CFAEC3F22; Thu, 4 Jul 2024 22:41:14 +0000 (UTC) From: Paul Vixie To: v6ops@ietf.org, dnsop@ietf.org Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 15:41:13 -0700 Message-ID: <23577391.6Emhk5qWAg@heater.srcl.tisf.net> In-Reply-To: References: <171957523370.366291.478718063778248894@dt-datatracker-ff7f57fbb-ch6dm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="nextPart2624143.Lt9SDvczpP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Message-ID-Hash: L6Y4UO44B5XFN2TK6M67VUWNFUWKI25L X-Message-ID-Hash: L6Y4UO44B5XFN2TK6M67VUWNFUWKI25L X-MailFrom: paul@redbarn.org X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BDNSOP=5D_Re=3A_=5Bv6ops=5D_Re=3A_Fwd=3A_New_Version_Notificatio?= =?utf-8?q?n_-_draft-ietf-dnsop-avoid-fragmentation-18=2Etxt?= List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --nextPart2624143.Lt9SDvczpP Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thursday, July 4, 2024 7:05:22 AM PDT Tim Wicinski wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:26=E2=80=AFPM David Farmer wrot= e: > > 2. Also, maybe R5 should have text similar to R3 with "...the minimum > > of...the interface MTU, the network MTU...and 1400 bytes..." Instead of > > "It should use a limit of 1400 bytes, but a smaller limit MAY be used." >=20 > Something like this: >=20 > "UDP requestors should limit the requestor's maximum UDP payload size to > use the RECOMMENDED size of 1400 bytes, but a smaller limit MAY be used." As before, I'd like to future-proof this document. 1400 may not survive and= should not be a=20 hard limit. If someone ever gets PLPMTUD working, or if local knowledge inc= ludes MTU=20 over a topology as a static configuration, then the recommended value shoul= d be ignored,=20 and the measured or locally defined limit should be the operational maximum= for that=20 datagram. Thus, not only a smaller limit, but also a larger limit, may be sometimes u= sed. This=20 document need not enumerate all such cases, but should not require revision= if 1400 turns=20 out to be like 640KB -- not a sensible limit for all possible futures. =2D-=20 P Vixie --nextPart2624143.Lt9SDvczpP Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"

On Thursday, July 4, 2024 7:05:22 AM PDT Tim Wicinski wrote:

>= ; On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:26=E2=80=AFPM David Farmer <farmer@umn.edu>= ; wrote:

>= ; > 2. Also, maybe R5 should have text similar to R3 with "...the m= inimum

>= ; > of...the interface MTU, the network MTU...and 1400 bytes..." In= stead of

>= ; > "It should use a limit of 1400 bytes, but a smaller limit MAY b= e used."

>= ;

>= ; Something like this:

>= ;

>= ; "UDP requestors should limit the requestor's maximum UDP payload siz= e  to

>= ; use the RECOMMENDED size of 1400 bytes, but a smaller limit MAY be used.&= quot;


As before, I'd like to future-proof this document. 1400 may not survive = and should not be a hard limit. If someone ever gets PLPMTUD working, or if= local knowledge includes MTU over a topology as a static configuration, th= en the recommended value should be ignored, and the measured or locally def= ined limit should be the operational maximum for that datagram.


Thus, not only a smaller limit, but also a larger limit, may be sometime= s used. This document need not enumerate all such cases, but should not req= uire revision if 1400 turns out to be like 640KB -- not a sensible limit fo= r all possible futures.


--

P V= ixie

--nextPart2624143.Lt9SDvczpP--