Joe Touch wrote:
After thinking more about the draft, I think it is
purposelessly hostile against innocent operators and
end users who are suffering between people filtering
ICMP and people insisting on PMTUD.
Today, innocent operators often clear DF bit and
end users are happy with it, because, today, probability
of accidental ID match is small enough.
That is not an innocent action.
It is a fair action by innocent providers.
It defeats PMTUD, which is a draft
standard.
So, the proper thing for IETF to do is to obsolete RFC1191.
There is no reason for IETF to ignore operational feedback
from the real world that RFC1191 is a bad idea.
It also violates RFC 791 and 1121.
To stop the fair violation, obsolete RFC1191.
This document only restates existing requirements in this regard,
>> Originating sources MAY set the IPv4 ID field of atomic datagrams
to any value.
is not a restatement of existing requirements.
stating them in 2119-language. It does not create any new requirement.
Operates that clear the DF bit are already in violation of three
standards-track RFCs.
That many operators are actively violating the standard track
RFCs means the standard track RFCs are defective.
Then, end users may actively act against PMTUD and/or IETF.
I disagree; if they wanted to do so, they already would have acted since
the requirements already exist, albeit in pre-RFC2199 language.
As your draft actively tries to change the current situation
that:
Today, innocent operators often clear DF bit and
end users are happy with it, because, today, probability
of accidental ID match is small enough.
it is not surprising if end users think you are guilty.
Masataka Ohta