[Int-area] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: (with COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 12 July 2019 11:55 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: int-area@ietf.org
Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3965B120099; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 04:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile@ietf.org, Joel Halpern <joel.halpern@ericsson.com>, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, intarea-chairs@ietf.org, jmh@joelhalpern.com, int-area@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.98.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <156293251422.27290.10665569839170409066.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 04:55:14 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-area/d2stM5wZK3NQu4-Q3kDVG9ut1Tk>
Subject: [Int-area] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 11:55:14 -0000
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document, a real problem in the real Internet I have a couple of COMMENTs below in the hope to improve the quality of the document. Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == -- Section 2.1 -- "An Internet path connects a source node to a destination node", what about multicast? If the document is for unicast, then it should be stated early in the document. s/If a link fails,/If a link or a router fail,/ A reference to "see NOTE 1" (using xref/target in XML) would be easier for the reader. Same for "NOTE 2" of course. -- Section 2.2 -- "In IPv4, the upper-layer header usually appears in the first fragment" perhaps the right place to mention RFC 3128 (informational) ? -- Section 2.3 -- Perhaps explicitly mention that PLPMTUD is therefore more reliable than ICMP-based PMTUD but not applicable to all traffic? -- Section 3.1 -- Please add reference to A+P (or better MAP ?) and CGN ? (done only in section 3.3) More generally, it is not clear for the reader why virtual reassembly increases the fragility. -- Section 3.3 -- "NOTE 1" is it the same as in section 2.1? Also add xref/target for the reader's convenience. -- Section 3.4 -- Suggest to replace "trailing fragments" by "non-initial fragments" as it is more accurate. -- Section 3.6 -- The section title refers to "data rate" while it is rather "fragment generation rate" (which will of course increase the data rate as a consequence). BTW, I never thought about that ;-) -- Section 3.7 -- Is it still the case that "Many implementations set the Identification field to a predictable value" ? Would it be possible to have some data backing this statement? -- Section 3.8 -- AFAIK, RFC 4890 is only applicable to IPv6 ICMP and not to IPv4 ICMP messages... please rewrite this part. -- Section 3.8.1 -- s/ICMP rate limiting/ICMP generation rate limiting/ Also RFC4442 is IPv6 specific. Add some text for IPv4 ? -- Section 3.8.2 -- Unsure what the "zone-based" has to do with the content of this section. -- Section 3.8.3 -- It may be worth adding that the paths TO and FROM the anycast DNS server can be different, hence, causing the described problem. -- Section 3.8.4 -- While actually correct, this would also mean that BCP38 is not implement in this network. -- Section 6.3 -- "that behavior MUST be clearly documented" unsure whether a "MUST" can be used for a non protocol action. -- Section 6.5 -- "MAY rate limit ICMP messages" please state "MAY rate limit the generation ICMP messages" Unsure how "Network operators SHOULD NOT filter IP fragments " can be implemented as non-initial fragments have no UDP/TCP ports... Doing statefull filtering is probably undoable. Even with a SHOULD this is probably too restrictive. == NITS == -- Section 2.1 -- s/Whlie/While/
- [Int-area] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ie… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker