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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 15, 2012, at 10:54 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>>>> That is not an innocent action.
> 
>>> It is a fair action by innocent providers.
> 
>> It is a violation of standards. They may do it innocently, but it's
>> still a violation.
> 
> You misunderstand standardization processes.

Standards remain so until revoked explicitly. Common use does not itself revoke a standard - it can also represent either operator error or ignorance. That decision has not yet been made for ignoring the DF bit - if you want to make that case, you need to take it through the IETF process to obsolete the existing standards.

> Moreover, there already is a change, RFC4821-stype PMTUD.

4821 neither updates nor obsoletes 1191. It provides an alternative, which is (AFAIK) not widely used either.

>>> So, the proper thing for IETF to do is to obsolete RFC1191.
>>> 
>>> There is no reason for IETF to ignore operational feedback
>>> from the real world that RFC1191 is a bad idea.
>> 
>> That is not the focus of this document. Again, we don't create a new
>> requirement.
> 
> Your draft reduces existing requirements to make RFC1191-style
> PMTUD more harmful.

It does not change existing requirements that the DF bit should not be ignored.

>> If you feel there is consensus to raise this change, that
>> would be a separate issue.
> 
> Do you think there is explicit consensus on your draft that
> we should make RFC1191-stype PMTUD more harmful?

If you have a specific example of how this draft makes 1191 PMTUD more harmful, please explain. Merely restating existing requirements on preservation of the DF bit does not.

>>>> It also violates RFC 791 and 1121.
>>> 
>>> To stop the fair violation, obsolete RFC1191.
>> 
>> The steps needed to allow DF clearing need to be determined; I don't
>> know what they are, but that's outside the scope of this doc.
> 
> Your draft has too much to do with RFC1191-stype PMTUD and
> is narrowly scoped to make RFC1191-stype PMTUD more harmful,
> which means it is in scope.

The draft neither mentions nor discusses 1191. If you want to update existing standards regarding PMTUD, you should write that doc.

>> You seem to think that this is OK because they have good reasons. That
>> may make their actions acceptable, but it will not make them compliant
>> *until* someone updates the standards that require the DF not be
>> cleared. This is not that document.
> 
> Once RFC1191 is obsoleted, your draft becomes almost useless
> because no one will follow the rate limitation requirement of
> your draft.

You can make that case in the doc that obsoletes 1191 if you like. 

This entire issue is out of scope of this document, though.

Joe