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

[Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>]

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