Re: [tram] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud-10: (with COMMENT)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 9/26/18 2:33 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> I support Adam's DISCUSS. I will go a bit further to say that, even if a new
> IETF LC occurs, I would be skeptical that the dependency on PADDING in a
> standards track protocol is appropriate unless people are willing to argue that
> RFC 5780 has become mature enough that it could reasonably be promoted to
> standards track.


To be clear, I agree with this sentiment, which is a part of why I 
suggested the STUN PMTUD mechanism be experimental.


> Another alternative might be to re-describe PADDING in this draft, as it is
> used in the context of the draft. I don't normally love that sort of
> duplication, but it might be appropriate here.


If we go down the path of defining an attribute in this document, I 
would suggest that the WG consider using a new TLV. The original purpose 
of PADDING was to force fragmentation. This document is using it for a 
somewhat different purpose.

/a