IETF Logo Mail Archive

[netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 20 December 2024 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF33C180B4A; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 06:31:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zQN2wFhu1ois; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 06:31:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C448C180B46; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 06:30:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p548dc3ec.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.195.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4YF8wd5y6szDCf3; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:30:57 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3826.300.87.4.3\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <f6bfd92f77634424936e1440f87d0749@swisscom.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:30:47 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9283724F-1912-4036-AE17-8627B9E02402@tzi.org>
References: <2EBB4D35-4D0A-4123-AE45-0D0C6B549E48@insa-lyon.fr> <EAEFE72C-2E72-4847-B612-E76617A1C5CC@strayalpha.com> <249963514c32443fb46250e3d7492944@swisscom.com> <1FD4AA1D-0509-45F3-96D4-A2FEE0390B60@strayalpha.com> <F721D255-EFF2-4FCA-812F-9816E25E9949@insa-lyon.fr> <9056d35ba7e24548b36c31bf75a4a6b6@swisscom.com> <98762A51-2207-4193-BB67-8F13CAD9A2C4@strayalpha.com> <b0918cd139444a56bccef2fa233ae828@swisscom.com> <01000193bb4d7eb1-9d40b4a7-3504-4367-b77b-44a5db15d004-000000@email.amazonses.com> <01000193c0e29a1c-9eedbddf-9f9e-4407-80f5-b1a3d776295b-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CH3PR11MB8519A9D21EA690F8F38EC712B53B2@CH3PR11MB8519.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <07E7EB11-2FDE-4CD1-B921-DBC04CA01723@tzi.org> <f6bfd92f77634424936e1440f87d0749@swisscom.com>
To: Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3826.300.87.4.3)
Message-ID-Hash: 2FLU24UKTE7OSOEROFHHEVJ3BNZJ7S6L
X-Message-ID-Hash: 2FLU24UKTE7OSOEROFHHEVJ3BNZJ7S6L
X-MailFrom: cabo@tzi.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-netconf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net, touch@strayalpha.com, draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif@ietf.org, tsv-art@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/G9IIC0GzfAIVwQVCl_JCewX0Dwc>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:netconf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:netconf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:netconf-leave@ietf.org>

On 20. Dec 2024, at 15:21, <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com> <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com> wrote:
> 
>> E.g., do you really want to run this over IP fragmentation?
> 
> No we don't. That’s why segmentation is specified and implemented in all the listed implementations. 

My question really was why there is a SHOULD?

If you think this should be a SHOULD, what is the exception that turns the MUST into a SHOULD?

Grüße, Carsten

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status