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

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Sun, 03 June 2012 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 17AC421F8570 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zXIevjbPqWfG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vimes.kumari.net (vimes.kumari.net [198.186.192.250]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A60321F8518 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.100.40] (unknown [207.34.158.233]) by vimes.kumari.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 53A3C1B402FF; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 11:21:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [IETF] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt> (Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field) to Proposed Standard
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1206022127550.17026@shell4.bayarea.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 11:21:47 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <35224171-BE58-4875-BE3A-7EAE7BB8B18D@kumari.net>
References: <20120531143816.30508.66250.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205311957420.31608@shell4.bayarea.net> <4FC9585E.6010205@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1206022127550.17026@shell4.bayarea.net>
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 15:21:47 -0000

-- 
No man is an island, But if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie them together, they make a pretty good raft.
                --Anon.


On Jun 3, 2012, at 12:34 AM, C. M. Heard wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>> Existing routers, which was relying on ID uniqueness of atomic
>> packets, are now broken when they fragment the atomic packets.
> 
> Such routers were always broken.  An atomic packet has DF=0 and any 
> router fragmenting such a packet was and is non-compliant with 
> the relevant specifications (RFCs 791, 1122, 1812).

Sorry, but no….

Not following the RFC != broken. Not following the RFC == non-compliant.

There are numerous places where implementations do not follow the specs for various reasons, ranging from simply not bothering, through philosophical differences to customers paying for non-compliant feature X.

Sorry, I'm in a somewhat pedantic mood, and I saw a soapbox, so I climbed up on it…

W

> 
> //cmh
>