Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] (PL)PMTU text (#3217)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Wed, 29 April 2020 06:44 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132453A0AB9 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.482
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
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 YgD6WGCJdGX8 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-17.smtp.github.com (out-17.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.200]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 215D63A0AB8 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-e8b54ca.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-e8b54ca.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.23.39]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 015926E00EE for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1588142694; bh=HHJhoymGlMq527FTaeXMRk7O2gtENYCJs7n+hskWNq8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=AGR7bqZ7YQj09FXrIqS1PgNHhv5t2y3OgpTFfl/UYQeDmHiEMWgb7yi0z3qcObVMh YTF9Y0Esi3siTiksnHNWESs7XUkIsuTaHecw50iyxDHlJ32uPV5joREKUl+jRsZGUL Uw579q6MfUiKuldXucXN10B7wd+gj0o3lmgK6WSE=
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 23:44:53 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2GAG54DJH2CTZK3UF4WUBWLEVBNHHB6D3HQ4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3217/621019631@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3217@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3217@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] (PL)PMTU text (#3217)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ea92265e5445_49003fbcd4ecd968374891"; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/h3lHS0jkySkxcvFxEwu5IglhY68>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 06:44:57 -0000

Let me see if I can break this down a little.  cc @martinduke for his opinion of these.

14.3.1: The first and last comment relates to the section on using coalescing to help the routing of ICMP messages.  I had no difficulty reading this section, though I might suggest one tweak:

> Endpoints that rely on the destination connection ID for routing *incoming* QUIC packets are likely to require that the connection ID be included in PMTU probe packets to route any resulting ICMP messages (Section 14.2) back to the correct endpoint.

The "further validation" text: DF is currently mandated, but this text pre-dates that requirement.  We should drop that clause.  And the other clause is a little lame.  I'd be happy dropping all of the quoted text.

Citing DPLPMTUDTD is sensible and we should do that.


-- 
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/issues/3217#issuecomment-621019631