Subject: [6man] #12 (rfc1981bis): s/proper MTU/path MTU

From: "6man issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:36:19 -0000

#12: s/proper MTU/path MTU

 s/proper MTU/path MTU
 In the following paragraph:

           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.  In this algorithm, the
            proper MTU is determined by starting with small packets and
 probing
            with successively larger packets.  The bulk of the algorithm is
            implemented above IP, in the transport layer (e.g., TCP) or
 other
            "Packetization Protocol" that is responsible for determining
 packet
            boundaries.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |      Owner:  [email-masked]
  [email-masked]   |     Status:  new
     Type:  defect       |  Milestone:
 Priority:  major        |    Version:
Component:  rfc1981bis   |   Keywords:
 Severity:  In WG Last   |
  Call                   |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/ticket/12>
6man <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/>

---

From: "6man issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:58:51 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 The word "proper" is taken directly from RFC4821.  The full intro
 paragraph from RFC4821 is:

    This document describes a method for Packetization Layer Path MTU
    Discovery (PLPMTUD), which is an extension to existing Path MTU
    Discovery methods described in [RFC1191] and [RFC1981].  In the
    absence of ICMP messages, the proper MTU is determined by starting
    with small packets and probing with successively larger packets.  The
    bulk of the algorithm is implemented above IP, in the transport layer
    (e.g., TCP) or other "Packetization Protocol" that is responsible for
    determining packet boundaries.

 I think this should be closed.

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-6man-
  [email-masked]   |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  rfc1981bis   |     Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last   |  Resolution:
  Call                   |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/ticket/12#comment:1>
6man <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/>

---

From: "6man issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:59:29 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => invalid

-- 
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:               |       Owner:  draft-ietf-6man-
  [email-masked]   |  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect       |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  major        |   Milestone:
Component:  rfc1981bis   |     Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last   |  Resolution:  invalid
  Call                   |
 Keywords:               |
-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/trac/ticket/12#comment:2>
6man <https://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/>