Hi Ron, No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Simply shorten Section 5.3 to the following:
> 5.3. Packet-in-Packet Encapsulations > > This document acknowledges that in some cases, packets must be > fragmented within IP-in-IP tunnels. Therefore, this document makes no > additional recommendations regarding IP-in-IP tunnels. > See [I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] for further discussion. and then update 'intarea-tunnels' to include the new information on 9180 MTU fragmenting tunnels that I posted in my previous list post. But, I agree with your observation that there is tribal knowledge here contained in a body whose average age is pushing retirement (self included) so all the more reason to capture it now. Fred > -----Original Message----- > From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Bonica > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 10:35 AM > To: Fernando Gont <[email protected]>; Tom Herbert > <[email protected]>; Joe Touch <[email protected]> > Cc: Joel Halpern <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; IESG > <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on > draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT) > > Folks, > > We appear to be rehashing issues that have been debated passionately before. > And I think that we have the following options: > > 1) Continue to debate, as if we might someday converge on consensus. > 2) Agree to disagree. > > If we follow the first path, we will need a continuity plan. As those who are > participating in the debate age, retire, and pass on to the > next life, they will need to be replaced by new participants. Otherwise, the > debate will subside without concluding. > > If we follow the second path, we will need to figure out what to do with this > document. Options are: > > - Abandon it > - Progress it as it was approved by the IESG and ignoring all contrary > opinions > - Progress it as it was approved by the IESG and add an appendix recording > contrary opinions and identifying them as such > - Progress it as it was approved by the IESG, deleting controversial sections > and remaining silent on these issues > > Does anybody see any other options? > > Mischievously yours, > Ron > > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
