The document fails to note that some implementations set the Identification field to 0. IMO, this is incorrect operation, since there are no reserved values for that field (including 0).
E.g.: http://archive.cert.uni-stuttgart.de/archive/bugtraq/2002/04/msg00184.html Some cases are claimed to be corrected, but that message indicates a remaining, deliberate case (if anyone has a handy Linux kernel, it'd be useful to check). Some issues with IPID=0 came up last August on the int-area list, notably regarding the ROHC review. See also draft-ietf-rohc-tcp-13.txt, sec 3.2, the Oct 6, 2006 draft (!). I *still* do not consider that compliant behavior, and it's worth referring to here, IMO> Joe Jari Arkko wrote: > FYI. > > The IESG wrote: >> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider >> the following document: >> >> - 'Fragmentation Considered Very Harmful ' >> <draft-heffner-frag-harmful-02.txt> as an Informational RFC >> >> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >> final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the >> [email protected] or [email protected] mailing lists by 2006-11-17. >> >> The file can be obtained via >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-heffner-frag-harmful-02.txt >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IETF-Announce mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
