Joe Touch wrote: >> After thinking more about the draft, I think it is >> purposelessly hostile against innocent operators and >> end users who are suffering between people filtering >> ICMP and people insisting on PMTUD. >> >> Today, innocent operators often clear DF bit and >> end users are happy with it, because, today, probability >> of accidental ID match is small enough. > That is not an innocent action. It is a fair action by innocent providers. > It defeats PMTUD, which is a draft > standard. So, the proper thing for IETF to do is to obsolete RFC1191. There is no reason for IETF to ignore operational feedback from the real world that RFC1191 is a bad idea. > It also violates RFC 791 and 1121. To stop the fair violation, obsolete RFC1191. > This document only restates existing requirements in this regard, >> Originating sources MAY set the IPv4 ID field of atomic datagrams to any value. is not a restatement of existing requirements. > stating them in 2119-language. It does not create any new requirement. > Operates that clear the DF bit are already in violation of three > standards-track RFCs. That many operators are actively violating the standard track RFCs means the standard track RFCs are defective. >> Then, end users may actively act against PMTUD and/or IETF. > > I disagree; if they wanted to do so, they already would have acted since > the requirements already exist, albeit in pre-RFC2199 language. As your draft actively tries to change the current situation that: >> Today, innocent operators often clear DF bit and >> end users are happy with it, because, today, probability >> of accidental ID match is small enough. it is not surprising if end users think you are guilty. Masataka Ohta