RE: CONSENSUS TEST: Fragmentation handling

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

At 10:29 AM -0400 4/8/04, Paul Koning wrote:
>  >>>>> "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.

I can live with two SHOULDs.

>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.

yes, #1 is interoperable, but also feature poor.

Steve