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

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Mon, 27 March 2017 02:35 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@gmail.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 4450E127735; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 iOTXrPFYo7U3; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22e.google.com (mail-wr0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DA331200A0; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id w11so23492324wrc.3; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=Y14bXAoeZfUpvBy1Oe5b9AIwA4Yncv4zGU5sf9A9PfE=; b=XP4L7+9sC7lFhY/HDpg9PaPp1ujQMlt9veSfSxjzTMAeKc/OeIFtQkuj9laEAGers6 27rbwe+qpLtr4/5F0EMwPpmEAiuBUnPnwNjgjvrM5T+Sit46l/iAOuhmGS2Vz2uUFnTE gNEONUEyYzbbY7Ln+C1QskB9eQ3BGDpLSsnIzPJ+idFRBx3U9sECY4fprGsD9JTisTJk pyZGPRqP05pF8r4iOyKAONdcDbMQ1R3hAmYyIByT0vb5JHjmkenEXEnp6IRee5QmT9np Ll2CXzRKqvKRlkm+OVAx7W9lx2LCyz82OKEhGAl/uYWtUHo3WiBxn8JfaIscf+pVXKeK ltVQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=Y14bXAoeZfUpvBy1Oe5b9AIwA4Yncv4zGU5sf9A9PfE=; b=A9BoI5lD+uHVyq3D0+5427zGd3gpIl4zSHGvcCrSxy36xPDYXPKoNhdb6SGHEAW+df ELZ9ZfhLOa3FApxQMDi/RLnWBJeuCMfOv8KwnWyuDIgRO9TcU12QV02JoHDKos5tR8CX wIjUFrMWZbv7fNtuumc3GO4ReDJiixk+rdYdel6LDLuRONKCNwhuUsYTZQQRrBokHNBM no3NFe2KvtPWjsVb3+jSTWQURv4YVooOk0SBixG9YlZdYCcVUC0LovYfamKD3DEQfoqT 61SN3HEoblu+kl/gwOZTAGrhB0HNnej5YEJ6hSgRU0MngLeFk9Vb/UiI1IfSSRTDHZOY t/hg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1FaWewkcSpWla76f8/6+oGyuoeQm2xSxpxPgGqF8NMmqPQNolcUUcsb6ttj1ytNg==
X-Received: by 10.223.162.130 with SMTP id s2mr19298484wra.149.1490582113932; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-9201.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-9201.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.146.1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u145sm12442868wmu.1.2017.03.26.19.35.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 26 Mar 2017 19:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <18CAF7CE-FDC1-46AD-9857-D4475564F4FA@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4C8AF37D-719F-4B29-B836-FC94BA0F810E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04.txt> (Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6) to Internet Standard
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:35:08 -0500
In-Reply-To: <58D862B2.5050607@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "tsv-area@ietf.org" <tsv-area@ietf.org>, "6man-chairs@ietf.org" <6man-chairs@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis@ietf.org>
To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
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> <2d36e28c-ee7d-20fc-3fec-54561e520691@si6networks.com> <C0A114C1-5E4A-4B8E-A408-55AF1E30873F@netapp.com> <3A5429F6-0EA6-436A-AF30-E55C9026F456@employees.org> <8cf1fe7d-bdfd-5e81-e61f-55d9ecd5d28a@isi.edu> <7E9AB9E8-3FCB-4475-BEEB-F18CFC4BC752@employees.org> <8076a1ea-182d-9cbe-f954-3e50f0fc53d9@isi.edu> <E11F9A4D-DE9E-4BFD-8D0D-252842719FC5@employees.org> <619f0dc52a514f07a70b44126aeb66f3@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <da3de0a5-fe7f-c874-db1d-da2684619213@si6networks.com> <706163b815ef439bbd9e0a17eba83512@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> <e201c72e-b7c1-5a5f-eacb-93896cd7a7bb@si6networks.com> <58A33D08.4090505@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <804AA9E4-A643-47A3-9FCC-DA1C450E7FB1@gmail.com> <58D518EA.5000508@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <4BC1763E-9D76-4EAA-B0B4-35620421736B@gmail.com> <58D862B2.5050607@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/frT5-My6R-NP529cqYxBYIkmSy0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 02:35:17 -0000

Gorry,

> On Mar 26, 2017, at 7:54 PM, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for those coments, which I cut, because I think they can now be turned to text. You asked a question about one comment, see below:
> 
> GF:
> Could the WG consider to also add the first two sentences to the security considerations?
> Bob:
> Sorry, which two sentences?
> 
> These were the two sentences, the rest of the para explained what PMTUD was, and probably could be left to the reader:
> 
>  "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (PLPMTUD) [RFC4821] does not
>  rely upon network support for ICMP messages and is therefore
>  considered more robust than standard PMTUD.  It is not susceptible to
>  "black holing" of ICMP message.”

OK, I can add that.

Thanks,
Bob

> 
> Gorry
>