Skip to main content

MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the-Network Tunneling
draft-savola-mtufrag-network-tunneling-05

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2006-01-11
05 Amy Vezza State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza
2006-01-09
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2006-01-09
05 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2006-01-09
05 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2006-01-06
05 Amy Vezza State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza
2006-01-06
05 Brian Carpenter [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter
2006-01-06
05 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-01-05
2006-01-05
05 Allison Mankin
[Ballot comment]
A new approach to PMTUD is in the works [13], but it is uncertain
  whether that would fix the problems -- at …
[Ballot comment]
A new approach to PMTUD is in the works [13], but it is uncertain
  whether that would fix the problems -- at least not the passive
  monitoring requirements.

A nice document, but about the above:  when the new method
PMTUD works, it looks to the transport like there is a lower
MTU path being encountered.  The mechanism is in-band in
the TCP and SCTP window establishments (and could also
be adapted into the feedback mechanisms of RTP and DCCP,
in the cases where they are able to reduce packet size,
though that has not been discussed).  This is not a blocking comment,
just for information.  One problem is that the PMTUD WG does
not keep moving very well :(
2006-01-05
05 Margaret Cullen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman
2006-01-05
05 Allison Mankin [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin
2006-01-05
05 Bert Wijnen [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen
2006-01-04
05 Bill Fenner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner
2006-01-04
05 Michelle Cotton IANA Comments:
We understand this document to have NO IANA Actions.
2006-01-04
05 David Kessens [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens
2006-01-04
05 Mark Townsley
Conclusion: Joe vs draft-savola-mtufrag-network-tunneling-04.txt

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Int-area] Re: Conclusion: Joe vs draft-savola-mtufrag-network-tunneling-04.txt
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:15:52 -0700
From: Joe Touch …
Conclusion: Joe vs draft-savola-mtufrag-network-tunneling-04.txt

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Int-area] Re: Conclusion: Joe vs draft-savola-mtufrag-network-tunneling-04.txt
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:15:52 -0700
From: Joe Touch
To: Pekka Savola
CC: int-area@ietf.org
References: <42EF5947.5020203@isi.edu>  <42EF739F.6010603@isi.edu>  <42EF77E9.6030302@isi.edu>  <42F09BE1.1040602@isi.edu>  <430CE170.2050700@isi.edu>  <4314DAAF.4060401@isi.edu>  <4329B8C6.6070002@isi.edu>  <433461BC.70400@isi.edu>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>>> which changes you'd like to see so I'll just have to ask "send text" and
>>> I'll check it out.
>>
>>
>> IMO, the major doc focus issues are more important and need to be
>> resolved before it would be useful to contribute text, since the latter
>> assumes that such pointwise patches would be productive, and I don't yet
>> see that.
>
> Ok, I think your main argument against the current structure is:
>
>  Documenting existing practice and pointing out the violation as a
>  side-issue isn't acceptable to me because it ends up
>  meaning that this doc is a snapshot of current practice, which I
>  don't think is appropriate for an RFC. IMO, the RFC should make a
>  statement that this is either OK and the spec should be changed or
>  that it's not OK and the implementations should be fixed.
>
> I do not think this is an appropriate as a blocking reason for a
> document

I-D aren't on a default path to RFC that is 'blocked'.

They're on a default path to disappear in 6 months; there needs to be a
*reason* to move to RFC.

There have been cases where there are significant reasons to snapshot
existing practice, so I'm not saying that "no RFCs are just ephemeral
snapshots". But the bar ought to be high, and I think that most of the
key points in this doc, except the fact that people break specs in ways
that we're not intending to endorse, have been made in other docs.
That's why I think the other reasons ought to apply (change the spec or
denounce the practice).

So, yes, this is my position. And yes, it's one person's opinion.

I hope others will consider whether and why this doc should move
forward, not whether it should not, however.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDRBhYE5f5cImnZrsRAk/OAKD7B8ZpKvg+0lvvpNVdkneWKnnOFwCg4Hm9
Hmgv394uoK+C+90kH41NSho=
=iKEI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
2006-01-04
05 Mark Townsley Area acronymn has been changed to int from gen
2006-01-04
05 Ted Hardie [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie
2006-01-04
05 Sam Hartman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman
2006-01-03
05 Mark Townsley Note field has been cleared by Mark Townsley
2006-01-03
05 Mark Townsley Pekka says that it is ready, and that I should review the int-area discussions, particularly Joe's objection.
2006-01-01
05 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley
2005-12-13
05 Mark Townsley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Mark Townsley
2005-12-13
05 Mark Townsley Ballot has been issued by Mark Townsley
2005-12-13
05 Mark Townsley Created "Approve" ballot
2005-12-13
05 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2005-12-13
05 (System) Last call text was added
2005-12-13
05 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2005-12-13
05 Mark Townsley State Changes to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation::External Party by Mark Townsley
2005-12-13
05 Mark Townsley Intended Status has been changed to Informational from None
2005-12-13
05 Mark Townsley Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-01-05 by Mark Townsley
2005-12-13
05 Mark Townsley [Note]: 'Pekka says that it is ready, and that I should review the int-area discussions, particularly Joe''s objection.' added by Mark Townsley
2005-10-05
05 (System) New version available: draft-savola-mtufrag-network-tunneling-05.txt
2005-09-18
05 Mark Townsley State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation by Mark Townsley
2005-09-18
05 Mark Townsley [Note]: 'Waiting on heads up from Pekka that this is being finished.' added by Mark Townsley
2005-07-28
05 Mark Townsley State Changes to AD Evaluation from AD is watching by Mark Townsley
2005-05-24
04 (System) New version available: draft-savola-mtufrag-network-tunneling-04.txt
2005-05-09
03 (System) New version available: draft-savola-mtufrag-network-tunneling-03.txt
2005-04-05
05 Mark Townsley Draft Added by Mark Townsley in state AD is watching
2004-10-21
02 (System) New version available: draft-savola-mtufrag-network-tunneling-02.txt
2004-07-19
01 (System) New version available: draft-savola-mtufrag-network-tunneling-01.txt
2004-06-14
00 (System) New version available: draft-savola-mtufrag-network-tunneling-00.txt