IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem-04: (with COMMENT)

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Mon, 19 October 2015 01:49 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53FF41A0AFE; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 UK1JasKEr4ul; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (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 C544F1B2BCF; Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb.local ([IPv6:2601:647:4204:51:750a:9ddd:9af7:53ff]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t9J1n7kR055206 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 19 Oct 2015 01:49:08 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <20151013165903.19562.54680.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <561F5A20.7040209@cisco.com> <CAKKJt-c3ORnrqV-RvnmF7O75qeZFVDs7ZDE6BXedASJ2X5tx7Q@mail.gmail.com> <2F7D0142-5BE8-4FD4-A012-2AC0497B6D1A@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|efb074931bcaf9f17e6288fe898ea75er9F90p03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|2F7D0142-5BE8-4FD4-A012-2AC0497B6D1A@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <56244C12.2010201@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2015 18:49:06 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/42.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|efb074931bcaf9f17e6288fe898ea75er9F90p03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|2F7D0142-5BE8-4FD4-A012-2AC0497B6D1A@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eetgB79LGJdX1knhkSOOHC1H48OR8ukvl"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Jq5Okzpi7wNsoZZrficxdx5upKY>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 01:49:16 -0000

On 10/15/15 1:06 PM, Tim Chown wrote:

>> I agree with your observation. I would think that in order for
>> something to be ideal, it should be possible (ideally we should be
>> able to send packets at greater than the speed of light, but we can't,
>> so. Ideally we should be able to send the PTB only to the place it
>> needs to go, but we can't, so). 
> 
> None of the mitigations are ‘ideal’.
> 
> But the document is useful for noting the problem,describing it well,
> and discussing wha *could* be done.

I tweaked it to remove ideal...

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem-04&url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem-06

> Tim
> 
>>
>> But I'm a TSV guy who is poking at this because of RFC 7258, so if the
>> SEC folk don't care, I'm fine.
>>
>> Spencer
>>  
>>
>>     Regards, Benoit
>>
>>
>>         Could that one word go away?
>>
>>         I see in email that Fred asked if any reviews were needed before
>>         submitting this draft for publication, and David Black
>>         suggested reviews
>>         from INT and TSV, and that made it as far as the shepherd
>>         writeup, but
>>         I'm not seeing a request for review popping up in TSV (at
>>         least not with
>>         "PMTUD" and "V6OPS" in an e-mail). I don't have concerns about
>>         this
>>         particular draft, but I wish it hadn't slipped through that
>>         particular
>>         crack.
>>
>>         Yes, Fred copied TSVWG and TSVAREA on his note asking for
>>         guidance, and
>>         yes, there was an IETF Last Call, so I'm not hitting "Defer"
>>         to chase
>>         that. Just something to watch for, in the future.
>>
>>         And yes, Martin and I have a call set up to talk with the
>>         TSVdir triage
>>         team next week ...
>>
>>
>>         .
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email