Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt> (Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field) to Proposed Standard

"C. M. Heard" <> Fri, 01 June 2012 03:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C9F11E80EE for <>; Thu, 31 May 2012 20:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UsN3DAQuAk5d for <>; Thu, 31 May 2012 20:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C62E211E8072 for <>; Thu, 31 May 2012 20:08:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 3320 invoked from network); 31 May 2012 20:08:57 -0700
Received: from ( by with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 31 May 2012 20:08:57 -0700
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 20:08:57 -0700
From: "C. M. Heard" <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt> (Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field) to Proposed Standard
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 03:08:58 -0000

On Thu, 31 May 2012, The IESG wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from the Internet Area Working Group WG
> (intarea) to consider the following document:
> - 'Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field'
>   <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt> as Proposed Standard
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> mailing lists by 2012-06-14. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

I commented on the previous version of this draft during WG last 
call (as a WG non-member) and supported its publication then.  I 
have looked over the changes in the present version and continue to 
support its publication.  I believe that it addresses an operational 
deficiency in current IPv4 specifications and largely codifies 
existing pactice.

My one reservation is that I do not think it is strictly necessary 
to ban re-use of the IPv4 ID value in retransmitted non-atomic IPv4 
datagrams.  On the other hand, the evidence available to me suggests 
that existing implementations overwhelmingly comply with this ban 
anyway, so it does not seem to do any harm.


C. M. Heard