Subject: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-07.txt>

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 10:33:47 -0700

Hi,

I published a new version of rfc1981bis (-07).  Links to the document below.

The changes from the IESG Discuss comments from IESG reviews.  These include:

           o  Added Note to Introduction that document that this
              document doesn't cite RFC2119 and only uses lower case
              "should/must" language.  Changed all upper case "should/
              must" to lower case.

           o  Added references for EMTU_S and EMTU_R.

           o  Added clarification to Section 4 "Protocol Requirements"
              that nodes should detect decreases in PMTU as fast as
              possible.

           o  Added clarification Section 5.2 "Storing PMTU information"
              that nodes with multiple interface, Path MTU information
              should be stored for each link.

           o  Removed text in Section 5.2 about Retransmission because
              it was unneeded.

           o  Removed text in Section 5.3 about Retransmission because
              it was unneeded.

           o  Rewrote text in Section 5.4 "Packetization Layer actions"
              regarding reception to make it clearer.

           o  Rewrote the text at the end of Section 5.4 to remove
              unnecessary details and clarify not change congestion
              window.

           o  Added references in Section 5.5 for SCTP and added DCCP
              (and reference) the list of examples.

           o  Added paragraph to Section 5.5 "Security Considerations"
              about black hole connections if PTB messages are not
              received, and comparison to PLPMTD.

           o  Editorial changes.

A diff from the previous version can be found at:

 https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-07.txt

Please review.

This is part of the project to move the core IPv6 specifications to Internet Standard.

Thanks,
Bob

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance of the IETF.
> 
>        Title           : Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6
>        Authors         : Jack McCann <>
>                          Stephen E. Deering <>
>                          Jeffrey Mogul <>
>                          Robert M. Hinden
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-07.txt
> 	Pages           : 21
> 	Date            : 2017-05-16
> 
> Abstract:
>   This document describes Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6.  It is
>   largely derived from RFC 1191, which describes Path MTU Discovery for
>   IP version 4.  It obsoletes RFC1981.
> 
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis/
> 
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-07
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-07
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-07

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 20:23:16 +0100

Bob

At the risk of missing the obvious, where has this I-D got to?

I am used to DISCUSS' being resolved and the I-D going on to
publication.  Is this one back with the WG prior to ...? Another IETF
Last Call, more Directorate reviews ...?

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Hinden" <[email-masked]>
To: "IPv6 List" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Bob Hinden" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:33 PM

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 17:40:42 -0400

Hi Tom,

> On May 16, 2017, at 3:23 PM, t.petch <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Bob
> 

The draft is still in IESG evaluation. There are 4 ADs holding a DISCUSS position on this draft. This new revision is aimed at resolving these DISCUSSes.

> publication.  Is this one back with the WG prior to …?

No. This is not back in the WG. It is still with the IESG. Since the DISCUSSes resulted in a bunch of text changes, the new version is being announced here to make the WG participants aware of the changes.

> Another IETF
> Last Call, more Directorate reviews …?

Once the DISCUSSes clear, the document should be on its way towards publication.

Thanks
Suresh