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

As far as I can tell (as a mostly observer who is now shepherding this 
document) the working group seemed very reluctant to get too specific 
about what were or were not constrained environments where fragmentation 
might (reasonably?) be expected (or not expected) to work.

I fear that trying to get more specific would open a complex discussion 
which might well never converge.

Yours,
Joel

On 8/6/2019 8:11 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
>> On Aug 6, 2019, at 5:41 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
> 
> I’m specifically wondering about application protocols (as distinct from other protocols) developed in the IETF (as distinct from developed elsewhere). Sometimes we use BCPs to guide future work in the IETF specifically, and it seemed to me that in that specific slice — IETF-developed application protocols — we may be able to make a stronger recommendation since we can’t be sure of the environment in which any given application protocol would be deployed (I think, but would be open to arguments otherwise).
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 
> 
>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> Int-area@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
> 