Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04.txt> (Path MTU Discovery f

On 2017-2-3, at 1:18, Brian E Carpenter 
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
> On 02/02/2017 22:54, Fernando Gont wrote:
> > On 02/02/2017 06:37 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> > > Given that ICMP delivery cannot be assured over the vast majority of
> > > paths in the current Internet, should this document make a
> > > recommendation to implement RFC4821?
> > I think that RFC4821 should be recommended, at least for dealing with
> > ICMP blackholes (i.e., use ICMP if you can, but be able to deal with
> > scenarios in which you don't receive them).
> Many people think that, but this draft is constrained by the rules in
> RFC6410 about "high degree of technical maturity" and "widespread
> deployment" in the move from PS to Standard. Adding new stuff is not
> supposed to happen. If I recall correctly, the WG tuned the language
> to its present state for that reason.
So in that case IMO the WG has made the wrong decision by trying to take this 
to Standard. A rev at PS that had brought the content up-to-date with regards 
to Internet reality would have been the better choice.

Lars

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP