RE: CONSENSUS TEST: Fragmentation handling

[Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>]

Stephen Kent writes:
> if neither #2 or #3 is a SHOULD, then I would like to add text that 
> every implementation MUST implement at least one of these, to give us 
> a decent chance of having a way to accommodate fragments for 
> port-specific SAs. in fact, maybe that is the best way to state this, 
> given the current set of comments on this topic.

Then we can have two implementations both implementing different parts
of that MUST and they do not interoperate. Also the case #3 can also
be used with IPv6, and the case #2 cannot securely be used with it, so
I think it is better to have case #3 as SHOULD and case #2 MAY. I do
not think we need requirement for "MUST" for at least one, as there
will be implementations which do not care about port selectors and/or
fragments.
-- 
kivinen@safenet-inc.com