|Main Archive Page > Month Archives > ipsec archives|
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 20:14 +0200, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> 2.3: The first paragraph contains an apparent contradiction. It
> mentions that pipelining is done 'if the other endpoint has indicated
> its ability to handle such requests' and then goes on to describe how
> a pipelining implementation can interoperate with a non-pipelining
> one. Which should be trivial if the pipelining side knows what the
> other side is capable of.
> Paul: Not done, definitely worth discussing on the list.
I thought the paragraph was describing two possible ways to send requests. From what I understood, the SET_WINDOW_SIZE only indicated the capability, it did not mean the endpoint receiving the notification had to send requests that way. That it could send one request and wait for a response before sending another request. Which made me think the last sentence in the 1st paragraph of section 2.3 "Certain rules must be followed to ensure interoperability between implementations using different strategies." was confusing. If the sender of the notification is only indicating a capability, and the receiver of the notification decides to continue to send a request and wait for a response, then I am not sure I understand how that is that an interoperability issue?