Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04.txt> (Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6) to Internet Standard

["Eggert, Lars" <[e-mail]>]

On 2017-2-3, at 1:18, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 02/02/2017 22:54, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> On 02/02/2017 06:37 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>>> Given that ICMP delivery cannot be assured over the vast majority of
>>> paths in the current Internet, should this document make a
>>> recommendation to implement RFC4821?
>> 
>> I think that RFC4821 should be recommended, at least for dealing with
>> ICMP blackholes (i.e., use ICMP if you can, but be able to deal with
>> scenarios in which you don't receive them).
> 
> Many people think that, but this draft is constrained by the rules in
> RFC6410 about "high degree of technical maturity" and "widespread
> deployment" in the move from PS to Standard. Adding new stuff is not
> supposed to happen. If I recall correctly, the WG tuned the language
> to its present state for that reason.

So in that case IMO the WG has made the wrong decision by trying to take this to Standard. A rev at PS that had brought the content up-to-date with regards to Internet reality would have been the better choice.

Lars