> On Feb 16, 2021, at 6:11 AM, Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org> wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for the review, q's, comments, and changes inline.. > >> On Feb 14, 2021, at 11:45 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca >> <mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>> wrote: >> >> Signed PGP part >> >> I have read draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs before it was adopted, and during the >> adoption call, but have been busy. So I have read it again today from >> beginning to end before tackling the long thread that has developed. >> >> EXEC SUM: I think that the document is not ready. >> There are a lot of MAYs and future work thoughts on the sender. >> That's fine. But, in order for future senders to know what's legal and >> what's not, what we really need is a clearly articulated Receiver State >> Machine. >> I suggest that this is pretty important. > > What did you have in mind? There are purposefully no restrictions for the > receiver to enforce. From section 2: > > The egress (receiving) side of the IP-TFS tunnel MUST allow for and > expect the ingress (sending) side of the IP-TFS tunnel to vary the > size and rate of sent encapsulating packets, unless constrained by > other policy.
I've added a summary of "Summary of Receiver Processing" to the latest revision. This gathers what needs to be paid attention to into a single place. Thanks, Chris.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
