Subject: [IPsec] Issue #52: Pipelining: interop between supporting and non-supporting peers

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 20:14:03 +0200

Yaron:

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.

---

From: Joy Latten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:17:27 -0500

On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 20:14 +0200, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> Yaron:
> 
> 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. 
> 
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?   

regards,
Joy