Re: Comments on PMTU-Draft-RFC

Philippe Prindeville <philipp@Gipsi.Gipsi.Fr> Mon, 05 February 1990 13:03 UTC

Received: from decwrl.dec.com by acetes.pa.dec.com (5.54.5/4.7.34) id AA01386; Mon, 5 Feb 90 05:03:29 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA09603; Mon, 5 Feb 90 05:03:22 -0800
Received: from [192.33.166.11] by inria.inria.fr (5.61+/89.0.8) via Fnet-EUnet id AA15760; Mon, 5 Feb 90 14:02:28 +0100 (MET)
Received: by gipsi.Gipsi.Fr (4.12/4.8) id AA05588; Mon, 5 Feb 90 02:50:15 -0100 (MET)
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 90 02:50:15 -0100
From: Philippe Prindeville <philipp@Gipsi.Gipsi.Fr>
Message-Id: <9002050150.AA05588@gipsi.Gipsi.Fr>
X-Phone: +33 1 30 60 75 25 / +33 1 47 34 42 74
To: deering@pescadero.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Comments on PMTU-Draft-RFC
Cc: MTU Discovery <mtudwg>

> concluding remark: it's too bad the protocol ended up so complicated.

Yes, I agree.  My suggestion to reconsider the Mogul/Kent probe
protocol raised a bit of dust about privacy, but no one said what
was inherently wrong with it.  I think we need some discussion on
this (though it is a bit late, admittedly).  If this comes up at
IETF, can someone make notes?  I think Steve and I shall be absent.

Thanks,

-Philip