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

Joe Touch <> Wed, 04 September 2019 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E7E120B83; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 11:12:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.219
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5lM3hNRkJkmn; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 11:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3492D120B82; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 11:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc: To:From:Date:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=28LhMI1CbYm3AbsjynFyAot4EoaT4J4ropC4BlwPgRk=; b=PjgrHPC/bTVReDZFVllKLm1CJ ALb2pdIavyffZ6G9VV12Ec5lQJmr68Q9x1svyGqxAb3VAIUZ98Y8xxfWskojS549F9ZngaXexujcW KWFsy/yS/u9aOEsmZb6LgmoHkVmXSwSw3c41MemMZgV3iZeeiH8yEKMCIODmPQoLhCODFWMNaEZQ7 6ej2Nmcs4oYn+LFkj/fmqu3T+mY+W4Obf0Mq6hvm9yZo0YWoc6nKt4Mr3ghjrBXZmGrMA6ebXw5iz fuEKRFCOinlCFw+Qu01sWW5/PetkgVEFi4BRS5LWouNv24NW9Zt7CvRKgu2i/zgBnIueWvNHDmmXq QI2jK5OeA==;
Received: from [::1] (port=46288 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1i5Zlf-003TZP-8M; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:12:35 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_01fa2b66a1bc999af7890be496967933"
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 11:12:31 -0700
From: Joe Touch <>
To: Fred Baker <>
Cc: Alissa Cooper <>, The IESG <>, Joel Halpern <>,,,
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Message-ID: <>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.7
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 18:12:38 -0000

On 2019-09-04 11:05, Fred Baker wrote:

> I did some of the edits, so I'll respond. Alissa issues a comment. We also got several other comments over the summer. This update responds to a set of comments. I'm on vacation and mostly out of contact, so my co-authors will need to proceed as appropriate. But this was NOT a matter of one person commenting and unrelated edits happening.
> For the record, I agree that fragmentation will in fact be used by applications and transports that are using it now, unless and until they are changed. Expecting otherwise is a fool's errand. Hence, while there are known problems with it, fragmentation and reassembly MAY be used. I don't think anyone is disputing that.

And yet the text that says exactly that has been removed and replaced
with text that says exactly the opposite (that it will fail). 

So whose consensus is this currently representing?