Fred,
If the NFSv2 and iPERF issues are not blocking, I would like to omit them. The
following are rational:
- Section 6 is an admittedly incomplete list of applications that rely on IP
fragmentation. In its words, "This list is not comprehensive, and other
protocols that rely on IP
fragmentation may exist. They are not specifically considered in the
context of this document."
- In draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-04 we say, "Some UDP applications rely on
IP fragmentation to achieve acceptable levels of performance. These
applications use UDP datagram sizes that are larger than the path MTU so that
more data can be conveyed between the application and the kernel in a single
system call." This captures the mindset, even if that mindset is in conflict
with RFC 8085".
- Mechanically, it is difficult to reference an RFC that has been obsoleted in
an internet draft. The NIT checker complains bitterly.
- You and Tom Herbert disagree on iPERF. Since the example is not essential to
the draft, I would prefer not to hold up the draft on this issue.
Ron
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:57 PM
> To: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; Tom Herbert
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: int-area <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> > In your mind, are these blocking issues?
>
> I don’t have an opinion about “blocking”, but IMHO the recommendations
> contribute to the completeness of the document.
>
> Thanks - Fred
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
