Re: [Int-area] Warren Kumari's Yes on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 6:55 AM Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On 8/8/19 00:58, Warren Kumari via Datatracker wrote:
> > Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: Yes
> >
> > 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:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > It's very seldom that I ballot Yes on a document for which I'm not the
> > Responsible AD, but this is important enough that I'm doing so; unfortunately
> > there are are some bits which make me uncomfortable though, and so I spent a
> > while in the unusual situation of trying to decide between DISCUSS and YES -
> > after looking at the author list and responsible AD I'm sure that my comments
> > will be considered, and so I'm balloting Yes.
> >
> > 1: "Legacy protocols that depend upon IP fragmentation SHOULD be updated to
> > remove that dependency." I really don't like the  SHOULD here -- while I fully
> > agree that legacy protocols should be update, the RFC2119 usage feels weird -
> > it's unclear exactly who it is aimed at (everyone? the people who wrote the
> > legacy protocols? some mythical cleanup author?)
>
> The tricky bit here is that throughout the document we employ RFC2119
> language to quote requirements from other RFCs, while in this specific
> case we use caps to stress that this is the advice we are giving out.
>

Yup. I really do support the concept / idea, but the combination of
2119 usage for requirements and uppercase to mean "... and pay
attention, this bit's important" feels odd.
I've been trying to think of some text which manages to convey this
without using uppercase, or making it overly verbose, but have failed
- perhaps we need the concept of **bold** al la Markdown?

While I still don't love it, I'm sufficiently convinced that I'm fine
leaving it as it is...

> FWIW, the advice hopefully triggers work for any protocols expected to
> work across the Internet, and that currently rely on fragmentation.

Yup, that would be good -- I really do approve of hte document /
concepts, I'm just trying to make it as good as can be.
W

>
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>


-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf