Re: [Int-dir] [Last-Call] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-10

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Hi Joe,

Thanks for all the time you have put into this exchange.

I'm taking a close look at Section 7. IIUC, the router function
language you refer to is in Section 7.2. Section 7.2 begins by saying

"The requirements in this section are a repetition of requirements that
apply to IP routers in general, and might not apply to implementations of
IP proxying that rely on external software for routing."

Is the common-sense reading of this that it's not "part of the tunnel
spec", and therefore that this won't complicate draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels
needlessly?

Martin

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 11:28 AM [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi, David,
>
> I’m fine with how the congestion control issue has been resolved.
>
> I think the doc should include some discussion of how it would be used,
> which can include a router bundled with implementations.
>
> However, my advice to the INTAREA ADs is that router functions must not be
> included *as part of the tunnel spec*. I don’t want to have to add this to
> draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels as a counterexample or with updates.
>
> Joe
>
> —
> Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
> www.strayalpha.com
>
> On Apr 20, 2023, at 10:26 AM, David Schinazi <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> Thank you for the very productive discussion around this draft. We've
> landed the majority of your feedback as changes into the document that are
> reflected in draft-ietf-masque-connect-ip-12. However, there remain two
> points:
> 1) inclusion of text that applies to routers that we see as important
> implementer advice instead of implementation-specific advice about TUN
> interfaces
> 2) whether disabling congestion control is a MAY or a SHOULD
> And for those, we're going to have to agree to disagree. The conversation
> was definitely interesting, but at this point I don't think we'll reach
> agreement on them.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>