Re: [tsvwg] New revision of DPLPMTU - Asking for WGLG in Sinagpore

G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Tue, 19 November 2019 22:34 UTC

Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 DB8581200B7 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:34:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 QQwrzOHJCxJA for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:33:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:42:150::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0C11200B6 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:33:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from G-MacBook.local (unknown [42.61.211.24]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 51C711B00204; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:33:52 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <5DD46DCD.6050700@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 06:33:49 +0800
From: G Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
CC: TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
References: <5DC9AE0A.20707@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <B5B741C8-9C79-480F-9498-8E04FFBC2132@eggert.org> <CACL_3VEAcwcLeLFnJW8MN+MJS_s0XPDdpyEgx46QNw807nHUYQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACL_3VEAcwcLeLFnJW8MN+MJS_s0XPDdpyEgx46QNw807nHUYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/ejxbeUqjY2VF8dB04tjBJvKpqS0>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] New revision of DPLPMTU - Asking for WGLG in Sinagpore
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: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:34:01 -0000

On 18/11/2019, 22:53, C. M. Heard wrote:
> Regarding the -10 draft:
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:35 PM Lars Eggert wrote:
>> On 2019-11-11, at 20:52, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>>> Could I ask ask you to look at the latest spec for DLPMTUD?
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-09.pdf
> ...
>> Section 8., paragraph 0:
>>>     7.  Probing and congestion control: The DPLPMTUD sender treats
>>>         isolated loss of a probe packet (with or without a corresponding
>>>         PTB message) as a potential indication of a PMTU limit for the
>>>         path.  Loss of a probe packet SHOULD NOT be treated as an
>>>         indication of congestion and the loss SHOULD NOT directly trigger
>>>         a congestion control reaction [RFC4821].
>>    Why "SHOULD NOT" and not "MUST NOT"?
> The edits to address this comment have for some reason removed
> the first sentence of the paragraph, which does not seem right. Was
> that change intended?
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike Heard
You are quite correct!

This was unintentional, we will fix this, together with a couple of 
minor editorial mistakes and re-issue.

Gorry