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

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Thu, 05 September 2019 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 235B3120922 for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 10:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 AHOMhrlqEa7G for <int-area@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 10:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72e.google.com (mail-qk1-x72e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (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 DC95A12080F for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Sep 2019 10:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72e.google.com with SMTP id x5so2961181qkh.5 for <int-area@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Sep 2019 10:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hTnAKdUoLN3ECaaNrAIjpsFcw6P1rrDKjAAcoZ6qs5U=; b=RmpEEHfOWbsEBJFB0aye6ctp9jqmzZOcLxy2qk4tYItO4yCIbWLIuoGfkyrHRtSYDp pTn+pfjdmpsvN6lhzvrYxVMlBqqdWuL1/cCLQ2hVmevI+B2gGHoDa4EfhKa1Edu011PW kOo5yMvkld/aPijmnosuE/Z+Z+VEcmdFz+DTVNetwby8WqTH4HYu4xK7otqd6XgOncoM xkIyhQCrjDfpAlAd/o3j8BRhw1+etSOE593JDEzkHmCMyUpUgLvW5Buw3KtLBA+EIdpn sHqJENU8Qi42rWAdOt6q1iXff2wIGBt0DdpqvrNGRlwLBu96xyJ0oEG6leP/kz2O3l1i 11+Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hTnAKdUoLN3ECaaNrAIjpsFcw6P1rrDKjAAcoZ6qs5U=; b=CEe3ggsTvWNeumi5Rf8KLPqBxBRLccONi5LO4fSuc8SBqoBUoXVAPUNv9+IN6niewR /Ex1SUqxJl2hv00/Cbvkvan//8QmDJsdys4ExVxNA2Kl469zqRLX33EN/QkNTDPCUX4y ey9bYU7+7tQqKcoqWFTgvKMJdu6xxNil3oy0+leWkGzuWFZN73RnCM8tXFNWuq4jQxJz bcnhwLyx6DIEsQHhg1gVUtZ0Cto6NuxN7XzRTCzI8yByKvHGjrvxoJRCXeHWFJIMF/tt 3pX7b1aHTtwsS5wk1hxcTDLm4wcglECn9Q42RPJ0s+cr1pjUfjMlB56grrZEfZSdtMOI A/7g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVuthNoN9neL5CYBGIqhJCiyYHQXoR6KgsnZlc5rLAsr0THTW3J e4RHV8k28gZodhWIuDX1qEUspQGca92paBc+Tv7EGw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyNyz6vZz9uiYc0Mtt5OQEX3DnXjvPjlvKuvfoNtv9SvBKtJS/FytGkvIetkK2UDFa+iDDMdsRw3Z4Xisjg424=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:4ccf:: with SMTP id z198mr4243761qka.245.1567705675623; Thu, 05 Sep 2019 10:47:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <efabc7c9f72c4cd9a31f56de24669640@boeing.com> <2EB90A57-9BBD-417C-AEDB-AFBFBB906956@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2EB90A57-9BBD-417C-AEDB-AFBFBB906956@gmail.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 13:47:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iKozCAC+8TGS0fSxVZ_3pJW7rnhoKy=Y3AxLqWEXvemcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>, "int-area@ietf.org" <int-area@ietf.org>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, The 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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/VUP14lFEdTmLXhicG44TB9Hml_I>
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: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 17:47:59 -0000

On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 1:57 PM Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
>
> It was taken out in response to Warren Kumari’s comment that it was out of place and already covered in a section later in the document. If it is added back in, it probably belongs in that section, not the introduction.

I was summoned...

My comment was:
"2: I'm unclear why IP-in-IP tunnels are called out at the top / in
the Introduction. There is a whole section (Packet-in-Packet
Encapsulations) where I think it would go better -- I see no harm in
having people have to read down to there to note this."

It would be a disservice if someone looked at this document, saw the
text in the introduction, and then stopped reading....

W



>
> > On Sep 3, 2019, at 5:33 PM, 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.
> >
> > 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
>


-- 
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