Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Martin Duke Transport Comment 8 #4457

Closed
LPardue opened this issue Dec 22, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #4461
Closed

Martin Duke Transport Comment 8 #4457

LPardue opened this issue Dec 22, 2020 · 2 comments · Fixed by #4461
Labels
-transport iesg An issue raised during IESG review.

Comments

@LPardue
Copy link
Member

LPardue commented Dec 22, 2020

@martinduke said:

14 "Thus, modern IPv4 and all IPv6 network paths will be able to support QUIC."
Generally true, but should be qualified for the presence of arbitrary numbers
of tunnels.

@LPardue LPardue added -transport iesg An issue raised during IESG review. labels Dec 22, 2020
@LPardue LPardue added this to the transport-iesg milestone Dec 22, 2020
@martinthomson
Copy link
Member

This is not one that I have an answer to currently. We could just wave this away as Martin suggests, but I'm not sure that is best. What do tunneling protocols say about ensuring the IPv6 minimum MTU?

@janaiyengar
Copy link
Contributor

I don't know what the IETF tunneling protocols say about MTU, but I don't expect them to violate IPv6 minimum MTU (someone should correct me if I'm wrong). The problem here might not be about what allowances we make for tunneling -- I don't want to create a list of exceptions in this document -- but about wording.

I propose changing "will be able to support" to "are expected to support".

As long as we are not making assumptions that violate permissions afforded by spec or practice, I think we're good.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-transport iesg An issue raised during IESG review.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants