Re: [tcpm] ICMPv6 Error Handling at TCP draft-fujisaki-tcpm-icmpv6-reaction-00.txt

At 06:31 a.m. 21/03/2007, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:

>Anyway, it doesn't matter which specific ICMPv6 code falls into hard
>or soft here.

Exactly. That's why it doesn't make sense to do the mapping from 
ICMPv6 to ICMPv4. The point is that there's no clear definition of 
what is a hard error or a soft error. There's no such thing as soft 
or hard by itself. It depends *when* you receive the error message. 
Defining ICMP admin prohibited as soft or hard is IMHO pointless.

>This is my opinion about RFC1122-revision and soft-error RFC
>relationship. As soft-error RFC will be informational in the immediate
>future, IMO all the vendors that implements RFC1122 may not even
>notice or take a look at it.

We have had this discussion of Informational vs. Std track for one or 
two *years*, more than one year ago. And the WG agreed on Informational.

As for vendors not looking at Informational docs.... I don't buy that 
at all. Let's be clear: Any vendor with a clue will (or what's the 
purpose of Informational docs, after all?). As a matter of fact, many 
vendors already look at internet drafts.

The ICMP attacks draft is aiming at Informational, too. Yet virtually 
all vendors have implemented most of it. Nobody ever bothered whether 
it was Std track or Informational.

If your specific problem arises from use of IPv6, then you can send 
the vendor (Microsoft?) the soft errors draft, and even direct them 
to the v6fix site. If that's not enough, I guess the only thing left 
is to have their clients tell them that it really sucks to have to 
wait dozens of seconds to browse a web page.

-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm