RE: CONSENSUS TEST: Fragmentation handling

[Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>]

>>>>> "Tero" == Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> writes:

 Tero> 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.

 Tero> Then we can have two implementations both implementing
 Tero> different parts of that MUST and they do not interoperate.

Agreed.  There really isn't any point in saying "you MUST do at least
one of x and y".  From an interop point of view "you SHOULD do both x
and y" is no worse and probably better.  With either text, you have no
guarantee of interoperability.

The only way to guarantee interoperability is to have "you MUST do x".
If we can get consensus on that (re #2 and #3), fine.  If not, then
weonly have #1 (not port specific) as guaranteed interoperable.
Personally I think that is sufficient.

   paul