IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04.txt> (Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6) to Internet Standard

otroan@employees.org Fri, 03 February 2017 08:38 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 77235129BC7; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:38:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 GTb_jWvSSAAw; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:38:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1BF129614; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:38:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2017 08:38:31 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D111ED788B; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:38:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=6hnT1XCnzUhWYmVCYMLIX9AdQqs=; b= Tuu954lgKMXR9uEx6JwNUEw1x4G/nbGupietXI5MeNraeHKjvKZSJLeyWM34JUOM tfeD61p5oFNN+rKf1QzhLTmvOgwcYFBx8Us8THm0zhOkjIfbK6YkUx9Desu4pzZs 9gbvkAkss39cbQmkeqlVF98oPbiM7dYJwdFGAHAkvZI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=nvtjr1OlaQAFXcR4DQMQHXW whQLYLdFlLyxYLYwXW+XP3r0Q3EtRsrGfynHuUsJ40bIaGQaeauAOAreMe19cq+P 1ExOATajSFFtzCmsemH9sOFuaYI4woDGd//4r3TCnqIEQ1ia/oinXgfJkCQjWgeG gWOiMvt1rxL5lsNjEupE=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (219.103.92.62.static.cust.telenor.com [62.92.103.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9719CD788A; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:38:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D42835CCD3; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:38:28 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <014D8A7C-449E-4849-9F49-990FF8B39DEF@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EF4ACE04-CDB3-4D4A-92A5-DCA87BE891AC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04.txt> (Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6) to Internet Standard
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 09:38:28 +0100
In-Reply-To: <1859B1D9-9E42-4D65-98A8-7A326EDDE560@netapp.com>
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
References: <148599312602.18643.4886733052828400859.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1859B1D9-9E42-4D65-98A8-7A326EDDE560@netapp.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/wM64yH80xDu_5QN3LyEsUBe_uTo>
Cc: "tsv-area@ietf.org" <tsv-area@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis@ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 08:38:34 -0000

Lars,

> the last paragraph of the introduction reads:
> 
>   An extension to Path MTU Discovery defined in this document can be
>   found in [RFC4821].  It defines a method for Packetization Layer Path
>   MTU Discovery (PLPMTUD) designed for use over paths where delivery of
>   ICMP messages to a host is not assured.
> 
> Given that ICMP delivery cannot be assured over the vast majority of paths in the current Internet, should this document make a recommendation to implement RFC4821?

Could you please substantiate that assertion?

Best regards,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email