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

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

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 think that guidance for implementers about use of fragments is useful, especially in documenting current behavior on the network and the justifications for it. However, we're starting to get a lot of overlap between the drafts dealing with fragmentation, whether it should be deprecated, whether we should simply provide a caveat implementer statement on using fragments but leave the standard alone, etc. It makes matters worse when one considers fragmented packets together with large headers, since at least some of the technical considerations 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 go 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 (or other related drafts), we should make sure we have a cohesive message. Right 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 operational 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.

>
>
>   
>