Re: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Tue, 25 April 2017 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73967128616; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:26:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V060TpduJo6C; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCBD212946A; Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.184.33] ([128.9.184.33]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v3PIQ1sq026365 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:26:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-06
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis.all@ietf.org
References: <149305392811.25808.15115824976388262628@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <497d3868-406a-a38f-56d8-391b0fc16032@isi.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:26:00 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <149305392811.25808.15115824976388262628@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/U46lN_YIIqWjFJuT14eXqCZWpTI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:26:56 -0000

Hi, Stewart,


On 4/24/2017 10:12 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Minor issues:
>
>  A node MUST NOT reduce its estimate of the Path MTU below the IPv6
>  minimum link MTU.
>
> SB> I missed this last time.
> SB>
> SB> Presumably you mean "A node MUST NOT reduce its estimate of the 
> SB> Path MTU below the IPv6 minimum link MTU in response to such
> SB> a message."
This seems fine to me, FWIW - i.e., limiting the advice in this doc to
the mechanism in  this doc.

> SB> 
> SB> Otherwise I would have thought that this was entirely a matter 
> SB> for the host whether it wanted to use a Path MTU below the IPv6 
> SB> link minimum. Nothing breaks if the host takes a more conservative
> SB> decision.
I don't agree; the host at that point is violating RFC2460. It should
never think that an IPv6 link or path with an MTU below what RFC2460
requires is valid.

Joe