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 20:56 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 0C22512004E; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:56:59 -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 JSpgzNSJKIin; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) (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 A84BE120045; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id k2so922551wmj.4; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:56:55 -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=Q9Mj4c5vjMJbkjA17exn+Ze0sMXMpuFfx1077dcfvNE=; b=QXaafm8tOqxj5nr0Jvak0dajNp3bDF92+ZMqjyVCVvH4fynHCbnQ7VrPejTapxdD4u YECE0EDBlREhYPDYN0LWsBlpchrg2yp/UNabh4Zx+zQT4b4ruNROBlYj36HZ8OBLvcSs JIbDUCGQA6yr0cTmx0u7LYEIbFlvAmrcmBgH3sd9mNFCBCxPUX8mLHDkzKATW1eSMICQ 6IkBbEeZSGKBmdK8bnh3U2MI0pngCD34yeZxqQF7MmRiHjjCm9Oxa88YYBrgpAoI9F+k mN25yr0n4vCpqn7rXuEIsVrdFI9va/8dN3isDZ+HAJh7+6iymRt9gMdfa3waOEWsQVf+ /IKg==
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=Q9Mj4c5vjMJbkjA17exn+Ze0sMXMpuFfx1077dcfvNE=; b=O6lH3IrA8Zp5gBTms3XIZq8be3Nq/YCHAwt9lVRW3hlND1stWCpu9LgoMbNWCqvqyB L0ra9FfdGUo6MulmUPp/oMMsWOejuJjjrAY8rp+QQIb+/ukTZKUGXyc7gkpDFupJe7wv H2KNS6JfdOAxIDbkA62oYpzML2wgGBlhbw4URGIy1FQ1HunWtHX5oVirNNs5YB663uXh Ojks1XpqTt8hH4EZpWtJvEzQcHdgsWBjeio9ntXgeF0dQIsjVuwgxgAEM6eo5/IgviSM l41G5+VVXnVfDFFAOidjLp8JPoFciwRgxcb3rWytdTyiB/U1gLVDNADJg1B/VSUjB19G lahw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVeP0qqbTypBS9rLpf07hcovsyW4r4PqydlT5MP0iGYMYHeZ5cR K5gl/aPcCesoXMlFhX08yRU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz4w31vHPBGZF8Yof12lPg02JayxTK0LJnYKpwSiP2EBAvsrhsJ4brLfpBhe93EmVZfaDyacg==
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c094:: with SMTP id r20mr1398102wmh.134.1567544214073; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:56:54 -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 q19sm36677742wra.89.2019.09.03.13.56.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <A8A10E03-6EEC-4F60-A213-7D66084BA754@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BDF8224F-9907-426D-8C75-B77D6EF640B5"; 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 13:56:42 -0700
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S37xhhS5ezhJu6-HQmftwY9cBzuCxeaW9thTbKBa2hizcw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org>, "intarea-chairs@ietf.org" <intarea-chairs@ietf.org>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.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> <0BF34BFA-5F30-4EE1-9F5E-18D9ECA8D424@gmail.com> <CALx6S37xhhS5ezhJu6-HQmftwY9cBzuCxeaW9thTbKBa2hizcw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/JRGazqBGcJ8raVzLeyymPZ5rzpE>
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 20:56:59 -0000

Tom,

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 1:33 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
> Bob,
> 
> I agree with Fred. Note, the very first line of the introduction:
> 
> "Operational experience [Kent] [Huston] [RFC7872] reveals that IP
> fragmentation introduces fragility to Internet communication”.

Yes, that text in in the first paragraph of the Introduction
> 
> This attempts to frame fragmentation as being generally fragile with
> supporting references. However, there was much discussion on the list
> about operational experience that demonstrates fragmentation is not
> fragile. In particular, we know that fragmentation with tunnels is
> productively deployed and has been for quite some time. So that is the
> counter argument to the general statement that fragmentation is
> fragile. With the text about tunneling included in the introduction I
> believe that was sufficient balance of the arguments, but without the
> text the reader could be led to believe that fragmentation is fragile
> for everyone all the time which is simply not true and would be
> misleading.

Yes, but we are discussing some text from the Introduction that to my read didn’t say anything useful so I removed it.  The substantive text about tunneling in in Section 3.5.  The Introduction, is just the introduction.  The text was:

   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.

Why is that more useful than what is in 3.5?  If it’s not making a recommendation, why call this out in the introduction.  There are lot of other things it doesn’t make recommendations about that aren’t in the Introduction either.

Bob

> 
> Speaking of balance, the introduction also mentions that:
> 
> "this document recommends that upper-layer protocols address the
> problem of fragmentation at their layer"
> 
> But the "problem" of fragmentation is in intermediate devices that
> don't properly handle it as the draft highlights. So it seems like
> part of addressing the problem should also be to fix the problem! That
> is implementations should be fixed to deal with fragmentation. IMO,
> this should be another high level recommendation that is mentioned in
> the introduction.

I am serving as document editor.  This to my understanding has been through w.g. last call and now IESG review.
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 1:01 PM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Int-area mailing list
>> Int-area@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area