To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>,
 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>
References: <156751558566.9632.10416223948753711891.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <efabc7c9f72c4cd9a31f56de24669640@boeing.com>
 <9331E721-F7F8-4C22-9BE4-E266726B3702@gmail.com>
 <7bfbaf5fa12c4a9bac3e46ece5dfdcde@boeing.com>
 <0BF34BFA-5F30-4EE1-9F5E-18D9ECA8D424@gmail.com>
 <CALx6S37xhhS5ezhJu6-HQmftwY9cBzuCxeaW9thTbKBa2hizcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <A8A10E03-6EEC-4F60-A213-7D66084BA754@gmail.com>
 <09d0dc428430407f8154f40d47a417dc@boeing.com>
 <67823455-8FCB-4C9E-8B78-41F2E99BDC21@employees.org>
 <1f5edd49236649929599820764dedb4e@boeing.com>
 <D80F747F-6F23-45C9-AE8B-5C059C5AC8DE@employees.org>
 <47aafc6dbef24b2ba76b81f95dbbedcb@boeing.com>
 <4461d66b-797c-4a14-b721-b6089221f1e1@si6networks.com>
 <CALx6S34hZX+OdT5yyw3Jh-iHZ3mRNsFuHXsaZnpZHevGaGifrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <86BA423E-AB96-44E1-9D3D-A792450F8563@gmail.com>
 <B0DA91E4-867A-424E-BB70-D1C5DF939AAE@strayalpha.com>
 <f8b2e7e6-e73b-bf90-6fe5-fe18e5a206f0@gmail.com>
 <3F248D34-9A3D-44AB-811D-CA025D15B818@strayalpha.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3450c11e-9127-edf1-f889-11fc61dab1de@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 15:50:19 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3F248D34-9A3D-44AB-811D-CA025D15B818@strayalpha.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/CHM3CgpOIj5nOi0r10VVai5WMgI>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
 draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

On 09-Sep-19 12:15, Joe Touch wrote:
>=20
>=20
>> On Sep 8, 2019, at 1:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail=
=2Ecom <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't that require the middle box to become an architectural elem=
ent?
>>>
>>> Yes, but not just =E2=80=9Can=E2=80=9D (one):
>>>
>>> Touch, J:=C2=A0Middlebox Models Compatible with the Internet.=C2=A0US=
C/ISI=C2=A0(ISI-TR-711),=C2=A02016.=C2=A0(Type:=C2=A0Technical Report=C2=A0=
|=C2=A0Links=C2=A0| BibTeX)
>>>
>>> =C2=A0*=C2=A0https://www.strayalpha.com/pubs/isi-tr-711.pdf
>>
>> I'll take the liberty of pointing out that we've known for many years =
that
>> there are multiple types of middleboxes and they have multiple facets:=

>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3234
>=20
> Facets are just properties. That doc makes no attempt to describe them =
as architectural roles.

Agreed. My point is that the issue has been lying on the IETF table for m=
any years, and we've collectively chosen to ignore it.
=20
>>
>> So far, we haven't added them to any formal architectural description =
of
>> the Internet, probably because we don't have one.
>=20
> RFC1122, RFC1123, RFC1812 as standards.
>=20
> I (and IMO those RFCs) disagree with the position you took in RFC1958, =
FWIW.

"you" =3D the IAB in 1996; I was only the document editor. But IMHO those=
 RFCs are not architectural as such. They describe functions of nodes, no=
t how the nodes work together as a system.

    Brian

>=20
> Joe
>=20
>=20