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

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Tue, 03 September 2019 20:01 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C000B120077; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 SKLqri8hNs7m; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42a.google.com (mail-wr1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F836120043; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id z11so18778078wrt.4; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=FoSuIAGRGT7ptInqHJY2OezgRn9VJKjA6zhkzRevhsg=; b=mggmYPzJ986Pi8FvyW8xubW0eZos67EMhfGrSfqWx2k4sjrvHxj5ENRyn2EkQn8xkB o5+1rZoARKWjVDDOsbI4ZveQJi91VhBiud2ySDSQ+fFTH9dPmD5Q3knR6XoyCDZ8Rv8S JPc9cbEy9AKa8dzg42GqrnuwPNf8KuePWwnwh4rMRZA+MV/fVmSDhZ9J+Mnc0KwUmo+O b5fiLEyfqZ73OoLxVRcQZoSCsfehkSrZic8zi8X8pS50HYHrf1YmG60aHf1csM+M9gX9 +4DDfxQVDqA5eH6DHS04w2gtRwom2Z2DQQNVGj1ZtGDE4SPm1I76TdXXYNQFvSAg1++h UehA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=FoSuIAGRGT7ptInqHJY2OezgRn9VJKjA6zhkzRevhsg=; b=Kcl7abZgOgu46d0JMPXaw3fjyD6WUCS5+1+87af59CQmSAe4MOy4D+mFPqsiXGyaqt J+olxHsRfBgOsHdKGpT/1LDQUqlW8TlYgGpgZ6civocIWAHCVaqWegA19u4FFk5BPtr0 Ujroi71xYa1idoh/LjquCoxyr6Lizc3tUpPlSeESYr4ch6vAf7sBX+cxm76GsDMByVTt r7OlGDhPBU+Lgy5LZ+trlA2/W92FSbxeet/zTxh15V3NFRDMWIe5AQaECowX+L1YHYND jPpkV9oA35IdLn+UeZnZCfv1EsqzEiRZPB7VrnIiGjTrliU/xV4vw6GOf/pIib1kmFDY 0pVQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVy6F+7UHEp//s3kAQCt3n0tGwuHwFLroIeujw/Qtb0QRazKTNx WEDO+mfQXACjl6GsvWivJVk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwBd81LdVSvTHEPICUFee7OsYP7l8290IZuUi8D4ELwIEux7J9W5b0dfqj8DKY8/NjwhrOaZg==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:e546:: with SMTP id z6mr5547687wrm.113.1567540863014; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.199] (c-24-5-53-184.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [24.5.53.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f24sm356114wmc.25.2019.09.03.13.01.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <0BF34BFA-5F30-4EE1-9F5E-18D9ECA8D424@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_74F08160-558A-4454-BD89-6E75AF6CBF9A"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:00:57 -0700
In-Reply-To: <7bfbaf5fa12c4a9bac3e46ece5dfdcde@boeing.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
References: <156751558566.9632.10416223948753711891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <B7C5DF29-92B2-477B-9C30-F47E338038EE@strayalpha.com> <efabc7c9f72c4cd9a31f56de24669640@boeing.com> <9331E721-F7F8-4C22-9BE4-E266726B3702@gmail.com> <7bfbaf5fa12c4a9bac3e46ece5dfdcde@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/BBkkY3A1FWzxANwUPM5J1_k3vps>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <int-area.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-area/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-area@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area>, <mailto:int-area-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2019 20:01:08 -0000

Fred,

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 12:45 PM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> Bob,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 9:10 AM
>> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
>> Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>om>; Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>om>; Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>in>; Joel Halpern
>> <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>om>; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>; intarea-
>> chairs@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
>> 
>> Fred,
>> 
>>> On Sep 3, 2019, at 7:33 AM, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Why was this section taken out:
>>> 
>>>> 1.1.  IP-in-IP Tunnels
>>>> 
>>>>  This document acknowledges that in some cases, packets must be
>>>>  fragmented within IP-in-IP tunnels [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels].
>>>>  Therefore, this document makes no additional recommendations
>>>>  regarding IP-in-IP tunnels.
>> 
>> This text in the Introduction was removed because, as noted in Warren Kumari
>> Comment (2019-08-07 for -15), this didn’t need to be in the introduction, and it didn’t say very much that isn’t described later in the
>> document.
>> 
>> The normative text in Section 5.3. "Packet-in-Packet Encapsulations” is unchanged.  I think Section 5.3 covers the topic.  It includes the
>> reference to [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels].
> 
> While I agree that both passages supply a working vector to 'intarea-tunnels',
> the two strike very different tones. The former gives a balanced citation, while
> the latter calls it a "corner case" - twice!
> 
> Whether we like it or not, fragmentation and encapsulation will continue to
> be associated with each other no matter what gets documented here. So,
> a respectful handoff to 'intarea-tunnels' would be appreciated.

You are talking about text in the Introduction of the document.

The important substance relating to tunnels is in Section 5.3.   The text is:

   5.3.  Packet-in-Packet Encapsulations

   In this document, packet-in-packet encapsulations include IP-in-IP
   [RFC2003], Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784], GRE-in-UDP
   [RFC8086] and Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 [RFC2473].  [RFC4459]
   describes fragmentation issues associated with all of the above-
   mentioned encapsulations.

   The fragmentation strategy described for GRE in [RFC7588] has been
   deployed for all of the above-mentioned encapsulations.  This
   strategy does not rely on IP fragmentation except in one corner case.
   (see Section 3.3.2.2 of RFC 7588 and Section 7.1 of RFC 2473).
   Section 3.3 of [RFC7676] further describes this corner case.

   See [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] for further discussion.

Seems fine to me, in tone and substance.

Bob


> 
> Fred
> 
>> Bob
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Tunnels always inflate the size of packets to the point that they may exceed
>>> the path MTU even if the original packet is no larger than the path MTU. And,
>>> for IPv6 the only guarantee is 1280. Therefore, in order to robustly support
>>> the minimum IPv6 MTU tunnels MUST employ fragmentation.
>>> 
>>> Please put this section of text back in the document where it belongs.
>>> 
>>> Thanks - Fred
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 7:06 AM
>>>> To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
>>>> Cc: Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>om>; draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org; The IESG
>> <iesg@ietf.org>rg>;
>>>> intarea-chairs@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
>>>> 
>>>> 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 <noreply@ietf.org> 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
>>>>> Int-area@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Int-area mailing list
>>>> Int-area@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>