IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Wed, 10 December 2014 12:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D25AA1A8A1D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 04:59:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 F34mXOOiGdt1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 04:59:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com (mail-wi0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FBC81A8A3D for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 04:59:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id h11so5038959wiw.15 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 04:59:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=AMqUyvUSKT0UfZk+Rswx/QLmnwjEKyQFSASMZEWKuwQ=; b=yXxiJV6762W4BmnvhCWXsKiHvrdc50EUv3ZZi8nk0hgqLvgWhtREb8vy7PR74QTE06 mSJYvOwgNgpbhhWmPrQHdEJu9BNaxdjG9q+6zHcqN3c7he9rrAbeM4i9BDGIDvr0OiZV R1VpJ2OMXuUagm0UdFPKDKios9SFi8IMG95ebytsYi+jswnfMHaBDkhQgXBu17g4U3gm YEQstVxsiK4twsKXrRkUB7evgTzfvlHPBMCwN+nbFZfAXtEjTLsuGb2derPiisRSyax+ JPQiZIpjNZ/9stwdj2kI59faWfzUuoOMmTOviJ11R5K/F7KNP0p2uR57zkHIBxRNi2UL hPgg==
X-Received: by 10.180.7.201 with SMTP id l9mr6078324wia.80.1418216396188; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 04:59:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.24.248.129] (dyn32-131.checkpoint.com. [194.29.32.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id f7sm6251558wiz.13.2014.12.10.04.59.53 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Dec 2014 04:59:55 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_71B300F9-AFBE-450A-AFF6-840B51CABD11"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-predictable-fragment-id-01
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54883E46.9020509@innovationslab.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 14:59:51 +0200
Message-Id: <E6F72043-C6EC-4B59-84B8-A097B197F3B7@gmail.com>
References: <CC2EE99E-475C-4DB5-9E7F-ED00B4D48561@employees.org> <86F24DAC-C017-4D09-9431-0C33134B55C2@employees.org> <5486B2E1.4050507@si6networks.com> <54870E28.3010502@innovationslab.net> <5487378A.10007@si6networks.com> <54883E46.9020509@innovationslab.net>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/DyIq0FYqZx0DcYtSDLzbeUw5NjI
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:00:00 -0000

>> 
> 
> That didn't answer the question.  In order to advance something on the
> standards track, there needs to be at least two interoperable
> implementations.  How an implementation initializes a field like the
> fragment ID, TCP sequence number, or ephemeral port number has no affect
> on interoperability.
> 
> What you are describing in those documents is implementation guidance,
> not a protocol specification.  Given that, I would suggest that this
> document strike any normative text, drop the Updates tag, and move to
> Informational.

That is my view as well.

Bob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email