Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:30 PM Alissa Cooper via Datatracker
<noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for writing this document.
>
> Section 6.1 says:
>
> "Developers MAY develop new protocols or applications that rely on IP
>    fragmentation if the protocol or application is to be run only in
>    environments where IP fragmentation is known to be supported."
>
> I'm wondering if there should be a bit more nuance here to make the
> recommendation clearer. Do we think there is a case where an application
> protocol developed in the IETF will be known to only run in environments where
> fragmentation is supported? If we don't think developing such a protocol would
> be in scope for the IETF, then I'm wondering if that case should be called out
> explicitly with a stronger normative requirement.
>
Alissa,

Are you distinguishing between protocol development and application
development? For instance, as written the requirements would allow a
UDP application developer to send 64K datagrams which might work
perfectly fine and be the best solution in their environment that they
know properly supports fragmentation.

Tom

>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Section 3.8.2: If there is any chance we think this situation might improve
> before this RFC-to-be gets obsoleted one day, I might suggest:
>
> s/The security policy described above is implemented incorrectly on
>    many consumer CPE routers./The security policy described above has been
>    implemented incorrectly on many consumer CPE routers./
>
> Section 3.9: s/Another recent study/Another study/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area