Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-05 Mon, 22 March 2021 09:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F9003A0BF5; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 02:04:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.372
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8SJu9pghJfwC; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 02:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7406A3A0BF3; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 02:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2a02:8109:1140:c3d:3555:7bb4:1d2e:c466] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8109:1140:c3d:3555:7bb4:1d2e:c466]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7F3D75CF95E8; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:04:17 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8792C288-BAFE-459A-A1F8-677CE0E300F8"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 10:04:17 +0100
In-Reply-To: <19201_1616395378_60583C72_19201_281_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353590AB@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
References: <> <19201_1616395378_60583C72_19201_281_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330353590AB@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 09:04:27 -0000

> On 22. Mar 2021, at 07:42, <> <> 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. As far as I know there is no safe value for
a PMTU you can derive from a specification.

So maybe:
  assume a PMTU of 576 bytes for IPv4 datagrams (see Section 3.3.3 of [RFC1122]
  for support at the receiver).

Best regards
> Cheers,
> Med
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Michael Tüxen via Datatracker []
>> Envoyé : lundi 22 mars 2021 00:33
>> À :
>> Cc :;; last-
>> 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 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.