Re: CONSENSUS TEST: Fragmentation handling

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

Vamsi,

	<SNIP>

>It seems fine to me, but I have these comments.
>1. Case 3 can be made as 'MAY'.
>2. When case 2 is not employed and when communicating security gateways
>     don't agree on, as mentioned in case3, the sender implementations, in my
>     view, MUST not drop the packets and use mechanisms such as 'reassembly'.
>     So, it would be better to indicate this explicitly in the text.
>
>Vamsi

I have no idea what you mean in comment #2 above.

If an implementation does not support the fragments-only SA approach, 
and does not successfully negotiate an SA for which the peer agrees 
to accept fragments and perform some form of stateful checking, the 
the implementation cannot send fragments for the traffic 
corresponding to the SA in question. is that what you want added?

Steve