Re: [v6ops] draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop WGLC

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Wed, 28 August 2013 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72C021F9C7E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kgu3cL+HSyGM for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:08:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8FF011E81CA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6821C94BD; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:08:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isc.org; s=dkim2012; t=1377727693; bh=XPzNDnDjJy+ecAw7+MD45G66xlz1GKwYrGvt3XYfqG0=; h=To:Cc:From:References:Subject:In-reply-to:Date; b=ing5/BDl9XyFJ6n6iQE96yDi5gEqKesEETc+D3wbaR3MyyrfQDR33HGvaDsiEaQ06 ezGVYir5fDGFh5VMIKp8ulX/yWCRq88tZgpElAL0mi0EMrKwp7PMDhoWRp9IgRs3/q Hx9jfgeo/pOan0rY8OK2vz3+DyFX0TnKe8Zmi4CE=
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:08:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marka@isc.org)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE1C160459; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:08:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (c211-30-183-50.carlnfd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.30.183.50]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1ED86160446; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:08:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D397938F3E57; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:07:55 +1000 (EST)
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
References: <201308181800.r7II06mv003294@irp-view13.cisco.com> <2671C6CDFBB59E47B64C10B3E0BD59230439DF7A39@PRVPEXVS15.corp.twcable.com> <521E411F.9090203@bogus.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:27:43 -0700." <521E411F.9090203@bogus.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:07:55 +1000
Message-Id: <20130828220755.D397938F3E57@drugs.dv.isc.org>
X-DCC--Metrics: post.isc.org; whitelist
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:08:20 -0000

Please, please, please.  Use line breaks.  Use blank lines.  I really
can't tell without going into a editor and finding the end of lines
who said what.

In message <521E411F.9090203@bogus.com>, joel jaeggli writes:
> On 8/21/13 6:19 AM, George, Wes wrote:
> > As to whether this is ready for IETF LC or should be adopted by the WG, no 
> it's not ready, and I don't know if it should be adopted. Specifically, I thi
> nk that guidance for implementers about use of fragments is useful, especiall
> y in documenting current behavior on the network and the justifications for i
> t. However, we're starting to get a lot of overlap between the drafts dealing
>  with fragmentation, whether it should be deprecated, whether we should simpl
> y provide a caveat implementer statement on using fragments but leave the sta
> ndard alone, etc. It makes matters worse when one considers fragmented packet
> s together with large headers, since at least some of the technical considera
> tions overlap.
> Imho this is the first of these documents in recent times. As an author
> I don't see the goal as guidance to implementors, I see it as guidance
> from operators.
> >  To avoid confusion, I think we need to decide which direction we want to g
> o before advancing drafts on the matter. 
> I agree that the plan should be cohernent.
> > If indeed we want implementers to read and heed the advice in this draft (o
> r other related drafts), we should make sure we have a cohesive message. Righ
> t now we have jus
> >  tifications and operational observations spread across at least this draft
>  and draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate (which I'd argue discusses the operatio
> nal considerations much more robustly than this document), and possibly even 
> draft-generic-6man-tunfrag.
> long-headers  is also in this space for relatively similar reasons.
> 
> >
> >
> >   
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka@isc.org