> On Aug 16, 2021, at 5:22 PM, Koning, Paul <paul.kon...@dell.com> wrote: > > > >> On Aug 16, 2021, at 5:09 PM, Tero Kivinen <kivi...@iki.fi> wrote: >> >> ... >>> Adding a more text pointing out the obvious results of this choice >>> (i.e., that sending inner packets early can create downstream out of >>> order delivery, or that waiting for outer packets can add delay and >>> bursti-ness) would not be my preference. >> >> It might be obvious to you, but it might not be obvious to the person >> doing the actual implementations. I always consider it a good idea to >> point out pitfalls and cases where implementor should be vary to the >> implementor and not to assume that implementor actually realizes this. > > I agree with that sentiment.
This is the specific case here: “Given an ordered packet stream, A, B, C, if you send B before A you will be sending packets in a different order” Again I’ll put this text to unblock this document, but really, sometimes things *are* obvious. Thanks, Chris. > The way I look at standards (protocol specifications in particular) is that > conformance should imply interoperability. If you give the spec to two > people and ask them to implement what's in the spec, and they follow the > stated rules, the result should be two implementations that interoperate. > > paul > > _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
