Agreed with both Thomas' text and Pekka's additional: "and process";
that part is important.
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas,
how about:
Nodes MUST always be able to send and receive fragment
headers. Note that even in the case where a sender does not
implement or us
> I'm OK with the proposed text, except Pekka Savola asked me if it should
> be changed to:
> Nodes MUST always be able to send, receive and process fragment
> ^^^
> headers. Note that even in the case where a sender does not
>
Thomas Narten wrote:
Nodes MUST always be able to receive fragment headers. However, if it
does not implement path MTU discovery it may not need to send
fragment headers. However, nodes that do not implement transmission
of fragment headers need to impose a limitation to the payload size
Thomas,
> how about:
>
> Nodes MUST always be able to send and receive fragment
> headers. Note that even in the case where a sender does not
> implement or use Path MTU discovery [RFC 1981], the sender
> must still be prepared to send fragment headers, even for
> pa
