On 02/02/2017 22:54, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hi, Lars,
>
> On 02/02/2017 06:37 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> the last paragraph of the introduction reads:
>>
>> An extension to Path MTU Discovery defined in this document can be
>> found in [RFC4821]. It defines a method for Packetization Layer
>> Path MTU Discovery (PLPMTUD) designed for use over paths where
>> delivery of ICMP messages to a host is not assured.
>>
>> Given that ICMP delivery cannot be assured over the vast majority of
>> paths in the current Internet, should this document make a
>> recommendation to implement RFC4821?
>
> I think that RFC4821 should be recommended, at least for dealing with
> ICMP blackholes (i.e., use ICMP if you can, but be able to deal with
> scenarios in which you don't receive them).
Many people think that, but this draft is constrained by the rules in
RFC6410 about "high degree of technical maturity" and "widespread
deployment" in the move from PS to Standard. Adding new stuff is not
supposed to happen. If I recall correctly, the WG tuned the language
to its present state for that reason.
Brian