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

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Mon, 10 September 2012 01:17 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: tig-diagnostics@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tig-diagnostics@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608C521F8462 for <tig-diagnostics@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.556
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z7UTDc7AJxel for <tig-diagnostics@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com (exprod7og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.157]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3A321F84D2 for <tig-diagnostics@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:17:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUE0/szIBZjSVSpAQxCABZJTpj5DFZyBY@postini.com; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 18:17:40 PDT
Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:16:43 -0700
Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by p-cldfe02-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:16:42 -0700
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 21:16:42 -0400
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <cpignata@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 21:16:41 -0400
Thread-Topic: [tig-diagnostics] draft-shore-icmp-aup-01
Thread-Index: Ac2Ktm/P6S0b7V/lRvupRDBu4ypcXwBRYOQAAL1nOuA=
Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D7830D75BD@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D782C5873F@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> <D310CAAB-419A-45D4-A83C-D07D1300BAFA@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D310CAAB-419A-45D4-A83C-D07D1300BAFA@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "tig-diagnostics@ietf.org" <tig-diagnostics@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [tig-diagnostics] draft-shore-icmp-aup-01
X-BeenThere: tig-diagnostics@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <tig-diagnostics.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tig-diagnostics>, <mailto:tig-diagnostics-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tig-diagnostics>
List-Post: <mailto:tig-diagnostics@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tig-diagnostics-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tig-diagnostics>, <mailto:tig-diagnostics-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 01:17:41 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) [mailto:cpignata@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 5:14 AM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: tig-diagnostics@ietf.org
> 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