Thanks for looking at the draft, Joe. Inline, On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Joe Touch wrote:
It's not clear that this document substantially adds to what is already covered in RFC2003 (IPv4 in IPv4), which is (surprisingly) not even cited.
I'm not sure if I understand where you're coming from. RFC 2003 is a protocol specification. It includes very little discussion or description of the cases which are the beef of this draft. The closest thing to this draft in RFC 2003 appears to be section 5.1, but that only includes very limited discussion of one of the possible options.
RFC 2003 hasn't been cited because there are dozens of mechanisms which all just can't be cited. It'd be easy to add a reference but that might be disadvantageous as that might lead the reader to believe that the list of the references is meant to be conclusive (which it isn't). However, if it makes you happier, I can certainly add the ref.
Additionally, sec 3.4 discusses the 'clear the DF bit' behavior; it is worth noting that this violates 2003 sec 3.1, but is what is specified in 2401 appendix B.1 (and retained in 2401bis, which is worth citing as well).
Thanks for the pointer; 2401bis section 8 does include interesting (though relatively brief, for the purposes of this document) material on this, and I'll do some wordsmithing here (and add a reference to 2401bis).
-- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
