Re: CONSENSUS TEST: Fragmentation handling

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

At 5:19 PM -0400 4/6/04, Mark Duffy wrote:
>At 12:27 PM 4/6/2004 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>OK, do we have have consensus on the following text?  (Taken from
>>Steve's message of March 22nd, with #2 changed to MAY and #3 changed
>>to SHOULD).
>>
>>Please respond by Friday....
>
>Hi Ted,
>
>I had raised several points on this that I believe Steve agreed to 
>and no one else commented on:
>
>a) For modes #1 and #2, the document should mention that the same 
>behavior must apply for drop and bypass rules.  (I think Steve 
>wanted to put it in another section.)

right.

>b) For mode #3 the text should be extended to state that if the #3 
>behavior has been negotiated, the receiver MUST NOT accept 
>non-initial fragments without verifying that they comply with the 
>security policy called for for the overall packet.

right again.

>c) Port selector ANY should include OPAQUE as well as all specific 
>values.  I.e. an opaque port number in a packet should match a 
>policy that has the value ANY.

I said that in my message to Ted, clarifying #1.

>
>Beyond that, I would much rather make both #2 and #3 be MAY and MAY. 
>(Rather than MAY and SHOULD.)

See my response to Francis on why we have a SHOULD and a MAY.

Steve