Re: [tram] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Simon,

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 7:27 AM Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This seems like an interesting technique that warrants collection of
> operational
> experience.
>
> >From a process perspective, I think we have a bit of an issue, unless I've
> overlooked something relevant. This is proposed as a Standards-Track
> document,
> but it relies on the use of the PADDING attribute defined in RFC 5780. RFC
> 5780 is Experimental, so this is a formal downref. And RFC 5780 does not
> appear in the downref registry [1], nor did the IETF last call [2] include
> a
> request that the IETF community consider allowing such a refernce.
>
> >From a practical perspective, the mechanism described in this document
> seems
> like the kind of thing that it would be useful to gather operational
> experience
> with prior to putting it on the standards track. I have some operational
> concerns (described below) that I think could be either proven out or
> dispelled
> by experimental deployment of the technology.
>
> My recommendation is to recategorize this mechanism as experimental,
> adding some
> text about the desire to gather operational experience.
>
> For avoidance of doubt: My DISCUSS is only on the process issue, and I'll
> happily clear regardless of how this issue is rationalized (e.g., either by
> running IETF last call again, by reclassifying this mechanism as
> experimental,
> or perhaps some novel solution that I may not have thought of). Everything
> else is merely a recommendation.
>
>
>
> I don't think I've seen a specific response to Adam's point here, which I
> believe is that one of (at least) three things should happen -
>
>
>
> - a second Last Call, explicitly calling out this downref, OR
>
>
>
> - approval as an Experimental RFC, which makes the downref issue go away,
> OR
>
>
>
> - (and this didn't happen in this thread, but in some conversation, I
> remember that) Adam wondered if reusing the PADDING attribute was the right
> thing to do (and that was a question, not a concern, but relevant here,
> since if this document defined its own attribute, the downref would also go
> away).
>
>
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
>
>
> Spencer, Adam,
>
>
>
> I see an easy fourth option:
>
>
>
> - Pull the definition of PADDING into this document. Declare that we've
> gathered sufficient experience with PADDING that it now warrants being
> elevated to Standards Track. That is, it's been proven to work.
>

This is plausible. It solves the first-order problem.

I note that RFC 5780 defined a number of new attributes. Is pulling PADDING
forward the right thing to do, or are there others that would also qualify
(so, perhaps a status change for RFC 5780)?

I don't have an opinion about this, but I should ask.

Thanks,

Spencer


> I’m fine with whatever, for the record.
>
>
>
> Simon
>