Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Updated ICMP PMTU section (#1412)

[Igor Lubashev <[e-mail]>]

I've made updates per feedback received.  There are two points of discussion left (that I know of):

1. This is promoting ICMP processing to a SHOULD.  I think this is a correct thing to do, since PLPMTUD claims itself to be an extension of ICMP-based PMTUD process.  Of course, implementations w/o access to ICMP would not be able to implement this SHOULD, but this is ok albeit unfortunate -- the very definition of a SHOULD (skipping on MAY is not "unfortunate").

2. I am using a mostly made up number (1392) as "conservative enough to be believed w/o on-path proof".  It was a compromise between "small enough for most Internet tunnels" and "not that small that someone would go into troubles of maliciously reducing PMTU of the victim to that number".  This may need a discussion.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/1412#issuecomment-400174137