Re: CONSENSUS TEST: Fragmentation handling

[Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>]

At 10:51 AM -0700 4/9/04, Joe Touch wrote:
>Stephen Kent wrote:
>
>>Ted,
>>
>>>1. All implementations MUST support tunnel mode SAs that pass traffic
>>>without regard to port field values. If the SA will carry traffic for
>>>specified protocols, the two selector sets MUST be used to specify
>>>the port fields for the SA: ANY and OPAQUE. An SA defined in this
>>>fashion will carry all traffic for the indicated source/destination
>>>addresses and specified protocol(s). If the SA will carry traffic
>>>without regard to a specific protocol value (i.e., ANY is specified),
>>>then the port field values MUST be set to ANY as well.
>>
>>
>>Mark Duffy convinced me that we should interpret ANY to encompass 
>>OPAQUE, as I noted in a message last week. So this part should be 
>>reworded to say:
>>
>>  1. All implementations MUST support tunnel mode SAs that pass traffic
>>without regard to port field values. If the SA will carry traffic for
>>specified protocols, the selector set for the SA MUST specify the 
>>port fields values as ANY.  An SA defined in this fashion will 
>>carry all traffic for the indicated source/destination  addresses 
>>and specified protocol(s). If the SA will carry traffic without 
>>regard to a specific protocol value (i.e., ANY is specified for the 
>>protocol field), then the port field values MUST be set to ANY as 
>>well.
>>
>>
>>Steve
>
>
>In the last case, it might be worth noting that if the protocol 
>field is ANY, then the port field values are undefined anyway.
>
>(the reason is to preclude an implementation that interprets "ANY" 
>protocol with "ANY" port to include only protocols that have ports.)
>
>Joe

agreed.

Steve