Subject: draft-ietf-tsvwg-source-quench-00.txt

From: [email-masked] (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:29:18 -0400 (EDT)

why does section 3 say both that a received source quench MAY be 
and also SHOULD be ignored (discarded)?  seems like it would be
good to be consistent

re SHOULD, (echoing Scott Brim) if SHOULD is used (rather than MUST) it
is good to provide guidance as to when it might be reasonable to
violate the SHOULD

Scott

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:08:26 -0300

Hi, Scott,

Thanks so much for your feedback. Please find my comments inline...

> and also SHOULD be ignored (discarded)?  seems like it would be

It says that it MAY be discarded by the network layer, but that it
SHOULD be discarded by TCP.

i.e., you MAY simply drop the SQ at the network layer (without relaying
it to the transport layer). But if TCP receives a SQ, it SHOULD drop it.

I guess the reationale for this is that you may drop the SQ at the
internet-layer (e.g., to avoid cointinue processing the packet at higher
layers). But the important thing is that, if TCP receives it, it SHOULD
drop it.

Note: I'm just the messenger... :-)

> is good to provide guidance as to when it might be reasonable to

As far as I am concerned, there's no reason to violate the SHOULD, and
this requirement should probably be a "MUST".

However, so far the comments I have received on list in favor of a
"SHOULD" (as opposed to "MUST") is that "processing ICMP SQs does not
cause interoperability problems".

I'd like to hear what others think... and have no problem at all with
changing this if the wg agrees to do so.

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1