Re: [tig-diagnostics] draft-shore-icmp-aup-01

[Ronald Bonica <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 5:14 AM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [tig-diagnostics] draft-shore-icmp-aup-01
> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
> Thanks for following up on this document. Please see inline.
> 
> On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> 
> > Melinda, Carlos,
> >
> > Thanks very much for posting this draft. It looks pretty good and I
> would like to see it progress after some discussion on this mailing
> list.
> >
> > The following are a few comments:
> >
> > Header
> > ======
> > The header doesn't specify an intended status. I think that the
> intended status should be BCP, because we are offering advice to the
> IETF regarding future work.
> 
> +1.
> 
> >
> > Abstract
> > ========
> > The abstract refers to "Some recent proposals". However, by the time
> that this draft is published, nobody will remember what those proposals
> were. So, I recommend replacing the Abstract with the following text:
> >
> > "This memo provides guidelines for the future enhancement of ICMP.
> Specifically, this memo defines the problem space in which ICMP is an
> appropriate solution. It also pre-empts the enhancement of ICMP for
> purposes outside of that problem space."
> >
> 
> One question: are these 'enhancements' of ICMP or 'extensions' of ICMP?
> Or simply applications/uses?

Err... I don't know. I was using the words interchangeably. What do you think?

> 
> > Introduction
> > ============
> > This section can be deleted. Section 2.0 provides a much better
> introduction.
> >
> > Acceptable use policy
> > =====================
> > - Rename this section to INTRODUCTION
> > - Replace the first two paragraphs with the following:
> >
> > "The following bullet points describe the problem space in which ICMP
> is an appropriate solution:
> >
> > - add the following bullet point: "To test connectivity between two
> > points on the Internet". (You need this one to explain echo and echo
> > reply.)
> >
> > - Add some text that says "You can enhance ICMP as much as you want,
> either by adding new codes or by adding ICMP extensions, but only so
> long as the extension serves the purposes listed above.
> >
> 
> One potential approach is to go back to the early definitions of
> ICMPv4|6, in which there is a high-level taxonomy of ICMP error
> messages and ICMP query messages -- with the latter further split in
> requests and replies. Note how things like Router Discovery are not
> OAM. RFC1470 describes ICMP as to monitor/debug IP networks; but
> redirect is not.

Sounds reasonable.

                Ron