> On Sep 6, 2021, at 4:16 PM, Tero Kivinen <kivi...@iki.fi> wrote: > > Christian Hopps writes: >> At this point please suggest the text that you would like changed or >> added to this document. I object to having to add it, but you are >> the chair and you are blocking this document so we must accept. > > I am not talking here as chair, I am talking here as an developer who > see no point of making crappy protocol. Thats why I said you either > need to properly explain what are the real effects of requring all > outer packets to processed in-order (and combined that with the case > that packets are assumed to be lost only after they drop out from the > re-ordering buffer, which means every single dropped frame completely > stalls the in-order processing of outer frames), or I would prefer > that you remove the in-order processing requirement and allow making > usable and efficient protocol.
You are asking for the changes after WGLC before you send the document to the IESG otherwise it would already be at the IESG. This is specifically a chair-only action you are taking. Look, it sounds like you have some idea for a simple change that would satisfy you, I’ve tried to address your concerns, but I keep falling short. Please, instead of writing another long email, just propose the change you want and we will put it in the document, and we can move forward. Thank you, Chris. > > I would expect that we would get similar comments from others also > during the last call or even during the IESG telechat, and fixing > those things during the working group processing usually makes things > faster. > -- > kivi...@iki.fi > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec >
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
