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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Mon, 13 August 2012 09:59 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 D5EEC21F8569 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 BN8dmj5j2rUH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5353721F8541 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:59:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.56] ([193.184.126.114]) (authenticated bits=0) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7D9wSNH020059 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5028CFC2.1060200@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:58:26 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
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> <4FE2715C.2090601@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <4FF20DE7.2080208@isi.edu> <500654AB.7060500@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <8F5CBE79-4540-4519-9F51-62B36686EE8C@isi.edu> <501C5C75.9040209@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <501C6441.4000302@isi.edu> <5020C32A.4060907@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <50215032.7090800@isi.edu> <5027767A.60601@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <5027E8EE.8010109@isi.edu> <5028CCB9.5050503@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <5028CCB9.5050503@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
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: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:59:16 -0000

On 8/13/2012 2:45 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>> Again, this doc is about updating the IPv4 ID specification in RFC791 -
>> which has not yet been updated.
> 
> But, the way you update rfc791 requires updating rfc2460,
> rfc2765 and their implementations, for which there is no
> consensus.

It certainly does not.

> That is, though your draft claims to "more closely reflect
> current practice" and "more closely match IPv6", the way you
> update rfc791 does not "reflect current practice" nor "match
> IPv6".

It does - it doesn't reflect the errors in IPv6-IPv4 translation, which
is not "IPv6".

Joe