Re: [internet-drafts@ietf.org: New Version Notification for draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00.txt]

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 08 May 2019 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 E09C912013C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 09:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 t_SjrtiYbwFi for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 May 2019 09:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bugle.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D76F12014A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 May 2019 09:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (30.51-175-112.customer.lyse.net [51.175.112.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bugle.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 317F1FECC04F; Wed, 8 May 2019 16:07:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F88914E00A9; Wed, 8 May 2019 18:07:51 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Subject: Re: [internet-drafts@ietf.org: New Version Notification for draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00.txt]
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190508125743.GA19360@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 18:07:51 +0200
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <19A018DE-280E-4400-95AC-7A3697ABE4B8@employees.org>
References: <20190508125743.GA19360@tom-desk.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
To: Tom Jones <tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/regLE5y9UMJ9gvp4aED4JS2Hn5A>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 08 May 2019 16:07:57 -0000

> Hello 6man,
> 
> We have put this together to change the status of RFC2675 to Historic
> and would like to request discussion in the working group.

IPv6 jumbograms was intended for some super computer inter connect with a massive MTU.
I don't know of any use of it, but is it harmful if the specification is left there in place?

I don't expect any implementation supporting it unless they also support data-link layers with an MTU > 64K.
Or is that the problem you are trying to solve, that a TCP implementation must handle datagrams larger than 64K?
Is there any other solution?

Cheers,
Ole


> ----- Forwarded message from internet-drafts@ietf.org -----
> 
> Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 05:30:11 -0700
> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> To: Tom Jones <tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Godred Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, Gorry Fairhurst
> 	<gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00.txt
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Tom Jones and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675
> Revision:	00
> Title:		Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic
> Document date:	2019-05-08
> Group:		Individual Submission
> Pages:		12
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00
> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675
> 
> 
> Abstract:
>   This document changes the status of RFC2675, IPv6 Jumbograms, from
>   Proposed Standard to Historic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------