Re: [tsvwg] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-17: (with COMMENT)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 02 April 2020 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF633A0B07; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=gmail.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 Zx0lKKpVOKLB; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe34.google.com (mail-vs1-xe34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e34]) (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 EB3D03A09C8; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe34.google.com with SMTP id s10so2831799vsi.9; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 10:03:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=/CxdwnR06soAqHa44LZ5HDEnHS7DM2H/kVj/aF093TU=; b=Foc8wBKzHE7jb+Zhj9f+O+9qDaXr0vuuYHqvzIJlE1ALBfR147VpiopJ0IjHeG+UZ/ wjO3suktlXQcvXQKH//lHDS8Z60kwfI+UynGyJ/PAeSz9ENIKLOnnI1rCG3nG8AcPclP mvw7XRsVEd377Eszwi5qeMvzbh3TC7wDfklJHkU2L5k9Bv0nnc7wxbBkzLTIEC6Bjk+z lkIl30a/jOq2w2+ZoRBTvtyDzgdI5SaB/k99TMOYfhsHV4NrIO9layhNguAQ3XgiUG6a SW9w4nvxBJBqmidbb00yzK2DdPXV+EEyqLXXtPF+ZL0Q7ZaW8vLpftUB/Z9kxgxUpEJH IqXw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/CxdwnR06soAqHa44LZ5HDEnHS7DM2H/kVj/aF093TU=; b=LZQusXZ133Ovb6U9m1NAAwI2AX60IwAOTFED4QjEefXcJeDjb+0zG3A79CwXmNLPxx H6mDEdiwvpZWtHCCWKwBa/kg6aAh2BFTdpwsmrnQxUfwT+H1D9PqTFXg4Vs4mr/eXqHT yN2JYGsMNivPxEaL97Wyx+dtVeZnjUCmvWGnwnTRcrM2ZOaz8goT4fM+cEQ5StR8Nymj 3c4xGxv6qhNE6nRHRfEpjksdjons3kvxG7Wj4CWBEmLoBIgnKF0TyyQX2kVlPY1j0VbW U+Pw5d0P+Du3JPKS1GpsSQCjzb4y5f5gUNaOH6hZ9vCV3vzbHtDSRwgHK9dDFltwZj7n J5DA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubMOsDBvT5uiH/IGTIIDSkuOJajJ3bhl+bTubhjP3zZ2UwkSdrS /D5cFOVgxuwI/9sKDmZIgRJwXLJIZP+SN7En/l3l4DEG
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLy1864AqSNbgQT2yla4mYeIjLTzro9nA7UZ/sxyxhiTJmLGvZbuBmvWviI4fzBq9XMHxa7tmsAAJOYj11OvMA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:2401:: with SMTP id j1mr2944981vsi.13.1585847001715; Thu, 02 Apr 2020 10:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158567197145.28499.17719634613395272227@ietfa.amsl.com> <48d8f4fa-2478-8200-c082-1d9f46b2530d@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <48d8f4fa-2478-8200-c082-1d9f46b2530d@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:03:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaOOm6Btdi2wsO3TpdRxTmPaXkWy5Rn8YsoqiOOfkpd6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud@ietf.org, tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000034970805a251c755"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/A7tFXtJILE7KN08TRHuXPAZHYCY>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-17: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 17:03:48 -0000

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 5:19 AM Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Section 3:
> * In bullet 2, "On request, a DPLPMTUD sender is REQUIRED to be able to
> transmit a packet  ..."
> -- I read this as "If I ask you to do X, you MUST be
> able to do X", versus "you MUST do X".  Was that the intent?
>
> GF - I think so, no change.
>
>
In that case I suggest mentioning, or referencing, something about why you
might not transmit said packet even though you're capable of it.

At base, I think it's an odd use of normative language to say you are
required to be capable of something and then provide no guidance, as it
compels no action.  I think more commonly you would say you SHOULD
transmit, and then discuss in what circumstances you would opt not to do so.

(Reminder: This is not a blocking comment; feel free to ignore it.)

-MSK