Hi, regardless of how old and obsolete NFSv2 is, the text in RFC1094 perfectly addresses the point. I was working for Digital Equipment Corporation in the late 1980’s when Sun Microsystems first came out with NFS. The two companies tried to form an agreement where DEC would provide VAXen as NFS servers for Sun clients, but many DEC VAX systems used an Ethernet line card called the DELQA that was too slow to keep up with 10Mbps Ethernet line rates (!).
When the VAX received a burst of IP fragments of an 8KB NFS/UDP datagram, it would drop one or more fragments and print “qerestart” in the system log. The DELQA would then reset itself and the network would be out of service until the restart completed. This rendered VAXen with DELQAs useless as an NFS server, so DEC had to qualify which of the VAX product line could actually support NFS. And, all because of IP fragmentation. So, I think there is value in keeping the citation. Thanks - Fred From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe Touch Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 8:41 AM To: Stewart Bryant <[email protected]> Cc: Ron Bonica <[email protected]>; int-area <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Int-area] draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-03 I would hope it would be evident from context, but sure. Joe On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:37 AM, Stewart Bryant <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Either way it is useful to give the reviewer a heads up as to nits giving errors and this being OK. S On 29/11/2018 14:42, Joe Touch wrote: They don’t need to be deleted if you include them deliberately. There is no prohibition on citing such RFCs for your own documents historical background. Joe On Nov 29, 2018, at 4:06 AM, Stewart Bryant <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: But, always worth including a "do be deleted" note to the reviewers to stop then all sending in feedback about the nits failure. Stewart On 27/11/2018 20:42, Joe Touch wrote: FWIW: On 2018-11-27 12:22, Ron Bonica wrote: Fred, If the NFSv2 and iPERF issues are not blocking, I would like to omit them. The following are rational: ... - Mechanically, it is difficult to reference an RFC that has been obsoleted in an internet draft. The NIT checker complains bitterly. Those complaints are warnings only to help those who cite such documents inadvertently; you can simply ignore them. (I do all the time - esp. for historical discussions that cite early versions of newer RFCs or historical standards). Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
