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

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> Sat, 16 June 2012 01:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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 83B1311E8083 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.282
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.282 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
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 6IHeTneI-RWK for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp [131.112.32.132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BEA0421F8449 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 88906 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2012 02:01:01 -0000
Received: from necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (HELO ?127.0.0.1?) (131.112.32.132) by necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp with SMTP; 16 Jun 2012 02:01:01 -0000
Message-ID: <4FDBE75A.8090100@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:54:34 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt> (Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field) to Proposed Standard
References: <20120531143816.30508.66250.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1205311957420.31608@shell4.bayarea.net> <4FC9585E.6010205@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4FC96ACA.9040800@isi.edu> <4FC97E57.6070505@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4FCEAB53.2020504@isi.edu> <4FDB12F2.6030808@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4FDB6843.6090107@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4FDB6843.6090107@isi.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 01:56:39 -0000

Joe Touch wrote:

>> After thinking more about the draft, I think it is
>> purposelessly hostile against innocent operators and
>> end users who are suffering between people filtering
>> ICMP and people insisting on PMTUD.
>>
>> Today, innocent operators often clear DF bit and
>> end users are happy with it, because, today, probability
>> of accidental ID match is small enough.

> That is not an innocent action.

It is a fair action by innocent providers.

> It defeats PMTUD, which is a draft
> standard.

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.

> It also violates RFC 791 and 1121.

To stop the fair violation, obsolete RFC1191.

> This document only restates existing requirements in this regard,

   >>   Originating sources MAY set the IPv4 ID field of atomic datagrams
   to any value.

is not a restatement of existing requirements.

> stating them in 2119-language. It does not create any new requirement.
> Operates that clear the DF bit are already in violation of three
> standards-track RFCs.

That many operators are actively violating the standard track
RFCs means the standard track RFCs are defective.

>> Then, end users may actively act against PMTUD and/or IETF.
> 
> I disagree; if they wanted to do so, they already would have acted since
> the requirements already exist, albeit in pre-RFC2199 language.

As your draft actively tries to change the current situation
that:

>> Today, innocent operators often clear DF bit and
>> end users are happy with it, because, today, probability
>> of accidental ID match is small enough.

it is not surprising if end users think you are guilty.

						Masataka Ohta