Lou Berger writes: > I'd prefer to see the SHOULD and MAY reversed -- intentionally > introducing additional reordering is generally considered something to > avoid.
Yes, intentionally introducing reordering or delay SHOULD be avoided, thats why it is important to keep the SHOULD and MAY as they are. The current text does NOT add any reordering, it just does NOT fix the reordering that has already happened. I.e., if the outer packets come in-order there is no reordering happening. The question is what happens when there is reordering happening in the outer packets. Keeping the SHOULD in first case says that we do not want to intentionally add any new delay, thus we process the outer packets immediately when they come in, but to do that we allow the reordering that happened in the outer packets to be propagated to the inner packets too. > I'd also be fine with both being a MAY and a recommendation for > this to be configurable. I strongly belive that we should not intentionally add reordering OR delay, and we SHOULD try to keep the conditions as they are, i.e., if there is reordering happening in the outer packets, lets allow it to be propagated to inner packets. If there is lost packet in the outer packets we SHOULD NOT cause extra delay when trying to fix reordering... I myself think that lost packets are much more common than reordered packets, and thus causing extra delays for each lost packets just to be able to fix reordering cases is much worse than allowing reordering to go through. -- kivi...@iki.fi _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
