Subject: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem WGLC

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 11:00:02 -0700

This is to initiate a two week working group last call of
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-pmtud-ecmp-problem.  
Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested
wording changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater
issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional
issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the
list.

We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the
document as well as its content. If you have read the document and
believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important
comment to make.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 11:45:33 +1200

Hi,

Generally I think this is useful and almost ready.

> 3.1.  Alternatives
> 
>    As an alternative, it may be appropriate to lower the TCP MSS to 1220
>    in order to accommodate 1280 byte MTU.  We consider this undesirable
>    as hosts may not be able to independently set TCP MSS by address-
>    family thereby impacting IPv4, or alternatively that it relies on a
>    middle-box to clamp the MSS independently from the end-systems.

The "that" in the second sentence doesn't parse. I don't understand
what the draft is trying to say about MSS clamping.

Also, shouldn't we say "undesirable but possibly necessary in some
cases"? A server at the mercy of an ISP might *need* to apply MSS clamping.

Nit:

It's confusing to have these two sections with identical titles:

> 3.1.  Alternatives
> 3.2.1.  Alternatives

Maybe 3.1 should be "MSS-based Alternatives"
and 3.2.1 "Distributed Proxy Alternatives"

   Brian
On 01/06/2015 06:00, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>