Joe Touch wrote:>
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.
Urrrr, I'm afraid standards can be ignored a lot more easily.
That operators think it fine to clear DF means IETF must
admit it especially because there is RFC 4821.
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.
So what?
That it does change existing requirements is the problem.
If you have a specific example of how this draft makes 1191 PMTUD
more harmful, please explain.
As I already wrote, your draft enables people insisting on 1191
PMUTD can, now, set ID always zero, which is harmful to people,
IN THE REAL WORLD, to clear DF.
Merely restating existing requirements on preservation of the
DF bitn
The reality is that you merely loosening existing requirements
to make IPv4 PMTUD more harmful.
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.
That you maliciously do not mention 1191 dose not mean your
draft is strongly tied to 1191.
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.
My point is that that's what IETF must do.
Masataka Ohta
PS
While your draft is rather harmful than useless, I'm fine
if the following point of the draft:
>> Originating sources MAY set the IPv4 ID field of atomic
datagrams to any value.
is changed to:
>> Originating sources MUST set the IPv4 ID field of atomic
datagrams to values as unique as possible.
which is what the current BSD implementations do.