Hi Joe/Fred T. /Tom, You have brought up some good points and I would really like to get this draft to progress in a timely manner. To help with this, I would greatly appreciate your help to move this along by sending specific change proposals pointing to the text in the draft you want changed preferably in the form of OLD: NEW: text so that it is easy for the authors and the WG to identify what the change entails.
Also, with my AD hat off, I think the SHOULD NOT is the right generic recommendation for future applications, but a few (non-exhaustive) exceptions could easily be written into the MAY part. E.g. "However, there may be certain classes of applications that can benefit by using IP layer fragmentation in order to reduce complexity or to minimize overhead. (Examples of such applications include <text from Fred, Joe and Tom>). These applications MAY prefer to use IP fragmentation." Does this sound like a reasonable way forward? Thanks Suresh On Sat, Dec 1, 2018, 7:16 AM Joe Touch <to...@strayalpha.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 30, 2018, at 2:57 PM, Tom Herbert <t...@herbertland.com> wrote: > > > > ...student writing a quick UDP app in their dorm room to have to consider > > all the pitfalls of fragmentation and whether they need to increase > > their complexity by an order of magnitude to implement fragmentation > > in their application. The promise of doing IP fragmentation at the > > network layer is that the application developer doesn't need to be > > concerned with such things > > Agreed. That and issues with IP frag are why we’re developing UDP frag. > > Joe > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
