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

Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Mon, 22 March 2021 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.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 232643A1772; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.972
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.972 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HAS_X_OUTGOING_SPAM_STAT=2.517, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.652, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.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 g_hdmcACTgNx; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server217-4.web-hosting.com (server217-4.web-hosting.com [198.54.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A8223A176B; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=jrIvM3GzH1JX7teqV8LPY4Mup6j77pFrPRRTjQgjilY=; b=y6oq8yKW/UWO0n47poF4ypluF 6nPnJw/uDgXjqwzK9+tiQYGen+BUo6Li0Ar0knEPdpAzdvgThM8NoUuY8Tpn9B+6JQlj5jKEt6Btd N9dgr89ZZUNC86HoEs2elz5eMDqCbDEzCaT9vtccUwOFET4AfGkK+/igkzYMuiK6PaMhndQ+DDVPL WWoaJbT3GypRZQiDr7hWzrQ/qKMOvHkr93LKlIPFb7vOuA6JsuY+Nj2r2DbWiaGIxopBm/aCfGtz5 MEqfZho3lzvyMGCPVXVwwX9HGhZZif1QFWAJxMukEjFeC3u6mAOtKhk7ZvhYUsKVo83/HhMZLk0bS 2ODFXcQ8Q==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:52816 helo=[192.168.1.14]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1lOM7o-001LS5-HQ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 11:05:52 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_62DB4E6A-B37C-403E-ACE6-340A2E88E653"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
From: Joseph Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <DF63CB57-1AC4-4FB6-9F62-7B6DB3541496@fh-muenster.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:05:46 -0700
Cc: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, "draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis.all@ietf.org>, "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>, "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <ECF4FD71-BCEF-4CB2-A09D-2C00DDC7A36D@strayalpha.com>
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>
To: Michael Tuexen <tuexen@fh-muenster.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/iebDMnZ8XVTbgEfA2-mlNaSZQ-o>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] [Last-Call] 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 15:05:59 -0000

Hi, all,


> On Mar 22, 2021, at 2:04 AM, tuexen@fh-muenster.de wrote:
> 
>> 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 shou
> 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:
> NEW:
>  assume a PMTU of 576 bytes for IPv4 datagrams (see Section 3.3.3 of [RFC1122]
>  for support at the receiver).

I agree with the assumption, but Sec 3.3.3 is not entirely clear about it being a *path* MTU, rather than EMTU_R.

Joe


Joe