Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04.txt> (Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6) to Internet Standard

"Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> Fri, 03 February 2017 08:15 UTC

Return-Path: <lars@netapp.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA93E12951F; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:15:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=netapp.onmicrosoft.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 PUfTHXHKEL4H; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:15:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx144.netapp.com (mx144.netapp.com [216.240.21.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77C65129BCA; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:15:21 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,328,1477983600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="174621007"
Received: from hioexcmbx02-prd.hq.netapp.com ([10.122.105.35]) by mx144-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2017 00:06:38 -0800
Received: from VMWEXCCAS04-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.20) by hioexcmbx02-prd.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:14:09 -0800
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (10.120.60.153) by VMWEXCCAS04-PRD.hq.netapp.com (10.122.105.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:14:09 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netapp.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-netapp-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=+Pyb76B1ZcbLhc8hMAqGA8FyaL35bgZ40dKO/rW3HNo=; b=gcjkSQDp02y2zliwgG1zEqJcMPLE0X5WvYYbr0CfdFSlPew6puR4P4UYk6Lg1PKd6NAs8Sc6EFRQEmOh80DNLjraMADvFFjG07an/127QCm2t1yVLub0Mzm+dgNGCRUNHfhnm3XMcf2HqeIh9GSYnN3FfwQqsfpydklSL83Kgvg=
Received: from BY1PR0601MB1158.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.160.196.21) by BY1PR0601MB1158.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.160.196.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.803.11; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 08:14:07 +0000
Received: from BY1PR0601MB1158.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.196.21]) by BY1PR0601MB1158.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.160.196.21]) with mapi id 15.01.0803.024; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 08:14:07 +0000
From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04.txt> (Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6) to Internet Standard
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04.txt> (Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6) to Internet Standard
Thread-Index: AQHSfOZWQnyqff8qTkSuzK39n1gXQaFVdhOAgAAEwQCAAPFzgIAAhOSA
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 08:14:06 +0000
Message-ID: <B843C372-D521-47F1-A9BE-61CFB5E1D11A@netapp.com>
References: <148599312602.18643.4886733052828400859.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1859B1D9-9E42-4D65-98A8-7A326EDDE560@netapp.com> <f8291774-409e-2948-3b29-83dbb09d39d9@si6networks.com> <63eaf82e-b6d5-bff5-4d48-479e80ed4698@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <63eaf82e-b6d5-bff5-4d48-479e80ed4698@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=lars@netapp.com;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [217.70.211.15]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9a568e16-a1ef-4fd7-5a66-08d44c0c9fee
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:BY1PR0601MB1158;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BY1PR0601MB1158; 7:oD6OfqHldt4waZmxFAqYvq0EjP1P9IvRA/qNGIy/BEbYuxCSdgzKedIL1YWigDSl1PKMzYZNuBhAcJ106poMKl321M2a4vEmX7DZdaZr7uOkZ6ixf/ZoSontGr8EULBjrtgWWme6DYneQ+uuEpyk6UnDIdemVYZsSiwWs4QHq11kf/DvAdCMynO7SPgu8NMYQhvIHk4Fd7yrnxUIVnkQgnbgKf+jLQ/wUKA902DGMrqkxaoy3OIV/QZ8uHxcb7DNX/A3VyNL0ZPT28YgT+NZVxaxd/ORBal53SLuLJe1Jm+/U1U1T+mzGO927woplK01EbGzy0Hstn9Hu3MZg7rGu35C8SWkshVazuIIencMYHSUmPQ0uP46Cstmy+l1e0mKmy6QMPcpx2msDSiwXhRSwbDs02HVnfb+Hn2vdi1EwI9obvfIo3Tnu/NGsWwEc3oe
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BY1PR0601MB115857CB2152D7F49A6BCC12A74F0@BY1PR0601MB1158.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(102415395)(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123562025)(20161123558025)(20161123560025)(20161123564025)(20161123555025)(6072148); SRVR:BY1PR0601MB1158; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BY1PR0601MB1158;
x-forefront-prvs: 02070414A1
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(7916002)(39450400003)(199003)(377454003)(51444003)(377424004)(189002)(24454002)(2906002)(93886004)(68736007)(39060400001)(81156014)(83716003)(3280700002)(230783001)(102836003)(3846002)(99286003)(2950100002)(54906002)(6116002)(4326007)(6916009)(3660700001)(189998001)(122556002)(6512007)(106356001)(82746002)(2900100001)(33656002)(8936002)(76176999)(50226002)(5660300001)(97736004)(53936002)(8676002)(110136003)(305945005)(106116001)(53546003)(105586002)(6506006)(4001150100001)(57306001)(77096006)(38730400001)(6436002)(25786008)(6486002)(50986999)(6246003)(86362001)(7736002)(36756003)(101416001)(66066001)(92566002)(229853002)(81166006)(99936001)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY1PR0601MB1158; H:BY1PR0601MB1158.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: netapp.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5514083F-9D93-4A1A-98AB-F9B33976BD89"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Feb 2017 08:14:06.9942 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 4b0911a0-929b-4715-944b-c03745165b3a
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY1PR0601MB1158
X-OriginatorOrg: netapp.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/QmgDL5Hrl3vUgMwf8eid0zwvaEg>
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis@ietf.org>, "tsv-area@ietf.org" <tsv-area@ietf.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 08:15:25 -0000

On 2017-2-3, at 1:18, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/02/2017 22:54, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> On 02/02/2017 06:37 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>>> Given that ICMP delivery cannot be assured over the vast majority of
>>> paths in the current Internet, should this document make a
>>> recommendation to implement RFC4821?
>> 
>> I think that RFC4821 should be recommended, at least for dealing with
>> ICMP blackholes (i.e., use ICMP if you can, but be able to deal with
>> scenarios in which you don't receive them).
> 
> Many people think that, but this draft is constrained by the rules in
> RFC6410 about "high degree of technical maturity" and "widespread
> deployment" in the move from PS to Standard. Adding new stuff is not
> supposed to happen. If I recall correctly, the WG tuned the language
> to its present state for that reason.

So in that case IMO the WG has made the wrong decision by trying to take this to Standard. A rev at PS that had brought the content up-to-date with regards to Internet reality would have been the better choice.

Lars