Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Hi, all,

So let me see if I understand:

Alissa issues a comment.

We discuss this on the list and come to a rare consensus on a way forward.

The new draft is issued that:

a) ignores the list consensus
b) removes a paragraph not under the DISCUSS (1.1)
c) now refers to vague “other documents” without citation
d) most importantly:

	REMOVES a key recommendation that we MAY use frag where it works
		
	Asserts the false claim that IP fragmentation “will fail” in the Internet,
	despite citing evidence that the *majority of the time* it does work
		e.g., for IPv6, sec 3.9

What happened? Why is a change this substantial not reflecting the *list consensus*?

Joe

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 5:59 AM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: No Objection
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area