Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-05

mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Mon, 22 March 2021 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DE383A0CFF; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 02:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=orange.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yrq2kHmMlykp; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 02:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.orange.com (relais-inet.orange.com [80.12.66.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7C6C63A0CF9; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 02:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from opfedar01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by opfedar25.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4F3q4z4knSz8t1B; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:31:31 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=orange.com; s=ORANGE001; t=1616405491; bh=RIG0cHFZHWiWN30RMpI7BQMtMBMQIC5VRDpjM6TS/1c=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=ICXbQD4uI1dDmpyn+vAinJcqz6nMbgE2whl3VOVArUDcQHIy/NkC/9MH0DuAoLkcu bcOjwZW21knsCxg7bVK0aqhxlm8gQR0VdBqzTuS2Vs9asCex+WmUiSFg4mO1DmhQ96 N9CzzS8IobLngXbTSPUYlW/4bsKOm3XlT4BjMXdVG8mYAkoNgAGt8avmXEcEnPlhah YWhNdwpGYw9jEVpi86eJUElmaZWO7LY7pXnVL/JVjlCt2gyjpuljpUtkOqXkPI1H+G +LocV8zOdnDIVoR1sXFbF977nMcoJpd+N6rTcH0jFAgYMP67YvSDj8f0cuXJ9WTMzl b9rbZdAWATNEA==
Received: from Exchangemail-eme6.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.13.48]) by opfedar01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4F3q4z3L4wzBrLP; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:31:31 +0100 (CET)
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "tuexen@fh-muenster.de" <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
CC: "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-05
Thread-Index: AQHXHvpYhZWLRZAT3U22tRY1R8vQmqqPvSHw
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 09:31:31 +0000
Message-ID: <9482_1616405491_605863F3_9482_55_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303535925D@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <161636957782.14687.3973826310014534947@ietfa.amsl.com> <19201_1616395378_60583C72_19201_281_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353590AB@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <DF63CB57-1AC4-4FB6-9F62-7B6DB3541496@fh-muenster.de>
In-Reply-To: <DF63CB57-1AC4-4FB6-9F62-7B6DB3541496@fh-muenster.de>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.114.13.245]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/Bf7VZUJEyS_5K4TJnekAFPlbeRs>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-05
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 09:31:39 -0000

Re-,

Please see inline. 

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : tuexen@fh-muenster.de [mailto:tuexen@fh-muenster.de]
> Envoyé : lundi 22 mars 2021 10:04
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> Cc : tsv-art@ietf.org; dots@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-
> bis.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-05
> 
> > On 22. Mar 2021, at 07:42, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Thank you for the review.
> >
> > The motivation was used as it was the key element in the discussion
> in Section 3.3.3 of RFC1122, but you made a fair comment.
> >
> > ==
> >         DISCUSSION:
> >              Picking the correct datagram size to use when sending data
> >              is a complex topic [IP:9].
> >
> >              (a)  In general, no host is required to accept an IP
> >                   datagram larger than 576 bytes (including header and
> >                   data), so a host must not send a larger datagram
> >                   without explicit knowledge or prior arrangement with
> >                   the destination host.
> > ==
> >
> > We can update the text as follows:
> >
> > OLD:
> >   assume a PMTU of 576 bytes for IPv4 datagrams, as every IPv4 host
> >   must be capable of receiving a packet whose length is equal to 576
> >   bytes as discussed in [RFC0791] and [RFC1122].
> >
> > NEW:
> >   assume a PMTU of 576 bytes for IPv4 datagrams (see Section 3.3.3
> of [RFC1122]).
> Hi Med,
> 
> let me try to get my point clear:
> 
> You can use Section 3.3.3 of [RFC1122] to motivate that the sender
> should
> not send datagram larger than 576, since there is no guarantee that the
> receiver has resources to reassemble and process it. But RFC 1122
> makes
> no statement about the path. 

[Med] There is this text in RFC1122: 

              Since nearly all networks in the Internet currently
              support an MTU of 576 or greater, we strongly recommend
              the use of 576 for datagrams sent to non-local networks.

As far as I know there is no safe value
> for
> a PMTU you can derive from a specification.
> 

[Med] I agree with you. Things are more clear for IPv6.

> 
> So maybe:
> NEW:
>   assume a PMTU of 576 bytes for IPv4 datagrams (see Section 3.3.3 of
> [RFC1122]
>   for support at the receiver).
> 
> Best regards
> Michael
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : Michael Tüxen via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org]
> >> Envoyé : lundi 22 mars 2021 00:33
> >> À : tsv-art@ietf.org
> >> Cc : dots@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis.all@ietf.org; last-
> >> call@ietf.org
> >> Objet : Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-05
> >>
> >> Reviewer: Michael Tüxen
> >> Review result: Ready with Nits
> >>
> >> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area
> review
> >> team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These
> comments
> >> were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are
> copied
> >> to the document's authors and WG to allow them to address any
> >> issues raised and also to the IETF discussion list for information.
> >>
> >> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should
> consider
> >> this review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please
> >> always CC tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.
> >>
> >>> From a transport perspective, there is one minor issue:
> >> Section 7.3 provides a motivation for using a path MTU for IPv4 of
> 576
> >> bytes.
> >> The motivation refers to the requirement that a receiver is capable
> of
> >> receiving IPv4 packets of that size, however they can be received
> >> fragmented.
> >> While it is acceptable to use 576 bytes as the minimum PMTU, the
> >> motivation does not hold.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________
> ______________________________________________________
> _____________
> >
> > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere,
> deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> >
> > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
> privileged information that may be protected by law;
> > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have
> been modified, changed or falsified.
> > Thank you.
> >


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.