IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6MAN: Adoption call on draft-hinden-6man-rfc1981bis-01

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Thu, 04 February 2016 19:16 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 B04391ACD6E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 11:16:17 -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 3f8L3d_D_PxH for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 11:16:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x236.google.com (mail-ig0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::236]) (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 AED731ACD45 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 11:16:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-x236.google.com with SMTP id rs20so23086030igc.0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:16:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=BNf+6Rs5mAFDqcDAqava4QDCps5VSN+Ml7nJbu5C8ys=; b=Clwbw2wF0nWWsnMjbTO9x6m8wdf+b4c1p6mJ8KGfn3hCSUvdGGJHwVgHYnP4yBpFII eaBXgnkcgfwM+kPxzZWbDWtTbGYKpeKMyywNut3da/XqTbLx3TCiTSLn2BSJGOVRPALg TOvwpNJKpCC/nt1GhBdJgF2t3sQz7rT6xRgFE7x5VNEcsb7c/L3/pSJ7GH9qGOPCjtNr TW8BvXm+brg43jTj0N9EoSBT09+sAq+zOJ71ss8As1r9zNJ3Piuqd5v2Px0Amp5vwQfR 13zoq541gQFEH9cm4KMFBQbaBRQ8N+NrCwrFrH7HCSabDgq1qX0bJ3BnQDQ+p/VthcQo KFfw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=BNf+6Rs5mAFDqcDAqava4QDCps5VSN+Ml7nJbu5C8ys=; b=bjO+10f3w38tTr040XeyE/LBzqC1bNHWcpKo1agvvrC8cdtuThj1QyJV1gCDpQ41+4 eIm+o8FJqUGYncQl2wsESlEktJ4RqVI3u9jTr2PTPFqMGHYVj97c2Hclk/uvzzb+dm3y anU2FQfarMoppoQGJaotfAIIdMsFKc1a5Cn/sC5gMkeFK4KGOk6OvraeKgWJx7Q2OkIa soZCGhZV4vytp4dRG9Wcc9j8EF0xnqvL1WxC4IRPSXqe1dZs5gI+woA/XwsexKtqyC/4 SyhBEYi8k6I5Xu80Jh/O3WK3LXamGWeRbmHGQSTyVqCV/06etsMMq1/nTzorr5yKneyy k/pQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORZKQpgzxn2qQAoVw47pFxybt9+tG+wTb7FUtfg7AhJw1PvH+2rnZyjm+G5NqchQw==
X-Received: by 10.50.30.6 with SMTP id o6mr10800102igh.57.1454613375099; Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:16:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.224.219] ([209.97.127.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id nq10sm5296914igb.2.2016.02.04.11.16.14 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:16:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: 6MAN: Adoption call on draft-hinden-6man-rfc1981bis-01
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CEE61186-4B8C-4284-8F9E-D5502D68732C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.2
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983183395DFFF@XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:16:12 -0800
Message-Id: <4E0B0B8D-4AE2-47F2-88F0-20589DB48BE1@gmail.com>
References: <9C0F366C-4887-4A63-8422-1C370F9CBD3E@employees.org> <DB69251C-55E5-4577-9C0A-0541A8946940@cisco.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983183395DE77@XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983183395DEF3@XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com> <8E7CAC70-9193-43B2-8A47-0C731B5464CA@cisco.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983183395DFFF@XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/h0l5m_TQ82w_xd58CzEYSCsIhZw>
Cc: IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
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: <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: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 19:16:17 -0000

Fred,

> On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:58 AM, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Fred,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fred Baker (fred) [mailto:fred@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 10:50 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L
>> Cc: Bob Hinden; 6man WG
>> Subject: Re: 6MAN: Adoption call on draft-hinden-6man-rfc1981bis-01
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 4, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Your text could be modified by simply adding the word "accurate" as follows:
>>> 
>>> "It defines a method for Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (PLPMTUD)
>>>   designed for use in environments in which delivery of accurate ICMP messages
>>>   to a host are not assured."
>> 
>> So you added the word "accurate". Anything else?
>> 
>> My question would be what makes an ICMP "accurate", and how the host might or might not determine accuracy. As near as I can tell,
>> RFC 1981 says that if a host receives an ICMP Packet Too Big, it should make the packet smaller. If the ICMP has been spoofed, unless
>> the spoofer has done something really egregious, I don't know how the receiving host would know that.
> 
> ICMP spoofing is exactly the point. But, it is not up to the host to determine
> whether an ICMP is accurate - it is up to the host to determine whether it is
> in an environment in which delivery of accurate ICMP messages is not assured.
> 
>> Given that, I don't think the wording change helps.
> 
> Without "accurate", the text does not address failure mode 2).

How is a host supposed to know if it is an “accurate ICMP message”?

This is starting to read to me like creating a new specification, not advancing the one we have now.

Bob

> 
> Thanks - Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email