On Jun 15, 2012, at 10:54 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Joe Touch wrote:
That is not an innocent action.
It is a fair action by innocent providers.
It is a violation of standards. They may do it innocently, but it's
still a violation.
You misunderstand standardization processes.
Standards remain so until revoked explicitly. Common use does not itself revoke
a standard - it can also represent either operator error or ignorance. That
decision has not yet been made for ignoring the DF bit - if you want to make
that case, you need to take it through the IETF process to obsolete the
existing standards.
Moreover, there already is a change, RFC4821-stype PMTUD.
4821 neither updates nor obsoletes 1191. It provides an alternative, which is
(AFAIK) not widely used either.
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.
That is not the focus of this document. Again, we don't create a new
requirement.
Your draft reduces existing requirements to make RFC1191-style
PMTUD more harmful.
It does not change existing requirements that the DF bit should not be ignored.
If you feel there is consensus to raise this change, that
would be a separate issue.
Do you think there is explicit consensus on your draft that
we should make RFC1191-stype PMTUD more harmful?
If you have a specific example of how this draft makes 1191 PMTUD more harmful,
please explain. Merely restating existing requirements on preservation of the
DF bit does not.
It also violates RFC 791 and 1121.
To stop the fair violation, obsolete RFC1191.
The steps needed to allow DF clearing need to be determined; I don't
know what they are, but that's outside the scope of this doc.
Your draft has too much to do with RFC1191-stype PMTUD and
is narrowly scoped to make RFC1191-stype PMTUD more harmful,
which means it is in scope.
The draft neither mentions nor discusses 1191. If you want to update existing
standards regarding PMTUD, you should write that doc.
You seem to think that this is OK because they have good reasons. That
may make their actions acceptable, but it will not make them compliant
*until* someone updates the standards that require the DF not be
cleared. This is not that document.
Once RFC1191 is obsoleted, your draft becomes almost useless
because no one will follow the rate limitation requirement of
your draft.
You can make that case in the doc that obsoletes 1191 if you like.
This entire issue is out of scope of this document, though.
Joe