IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com> Mon, 18 November 2019 14:53 UTC

Return-Path: <heard@pobox.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 7B80C120933 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 06:53:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=heard@pobox.com header.d=pobox.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 dAr7MO3SaxQ1 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 06:53:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20EE01208AE for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 06:53:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3B86928DD for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:53:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; s=sasl; bh=DfQzUPj32CEjs+qb3iLizacZWyQ=; b=AV0xK+ U8EhnXEs4yEAwL73s2Svf4gtminBeT1DJgGxOKIg2N12067wDr6ztHiKxsSO/RHP SDQ7kGN0S8tXqzr6LWqYMgqaiMEIPpU4TlLXRKsK6wU4568jg+I6xI7w4Je7CWJL AkXJr9bezJC3bZALhAZ5BBSpiQXAAcRDpni3U=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=eLf7SiDBRH8UO2hRpJd4SB7fdQRUwR+h 7Ltg9/CwFwQazyCp3DYzLSWbxHWjBBYl8fm1JWzQujTK5AqzaLfigyrLWfBp7dhV cGVrhNEuJ5WUUKNQRuMkduatIn+luaeNDX7LQRIRoRxzw84u/nqqYfCFeaopVUF4 Du3ySvHT498=
Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE74928DC for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:53:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: from mail-il1-f170.google.com (unknown [209.85.166.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A338928DB for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:53:26 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from heard@pobox.com)
Received: by mail-il1-f170.google.com with SMTP id d83so16218142ilk.7 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 06:53:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW3zI6ji8mV8/k5fnE+FHtK0gXh7lcffbQCVQLFbDvyNq25uo3e GVnhXjPRVX4+5OIm7GZIHDCa7ZKaA/+IQvSDoW0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwFIsQgBp9zSQBeZDU7AvyMZdsy6qlzYgrWLIaX+urRN3gmRIQyLGnyEDHayo0k2KeHTFVEtcvniQLqkCh/vwA=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:865c:: with SMTP id g89mr16978549ild.291.1574088805209; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 06:53:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <5DC9AE0A.20707@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <B5B741C8-9C79-480F-9498-8E04FFBC2132@eggert.org>
In-Reply-To: <B5B741C8-9C79-480F-9498-8E04FFBC2132@eggert.org>
From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 06:53:11 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACL_3VEAcwcLeLFnJW8MN+MJS_s0XPDdpyEgx46QNw807nHUYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACL_3VEAcwcLeLFnJW8MN+MJS_s0XPDdpyEgx46QNw807nHUYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: TSVWG <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Cc: Gorry Fairhust <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2D13DBF8-0A13-11EA-BB0F-B0405B776F7B-06080547!pb-smtp20.pobox.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/o927z21jxt3d7ehYyMS2QmOZiCg>
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: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 14:53:31 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email