Hi,
On Fri, 2019-12-20 at 05:01 +0000, Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) wrote: > Thanks Magnus. > > > The EST-coaps client MUST support > > Block1 only if it sends EST-coaps requests with an IP packet size > > that exceeds the Path MTU. > > > > I think the requirement for when Block1 is required to be supported in the > > above sentence is unclear. Is the intention to say: An EST-coaps MUST > > support > > block1 to be capable to send requests that would otherwise result in the > > reliance on IP level fragmentation? > > Yes, that was the intention. We will rephrase it to say > > [...] The EST-coaps client MUST support > Block1 only if it sends large EST-coaps requests that would > otherwise result to IP layer fragmentation. > Is it support or use block1 when the request is to big? I think the combination of support and only results in uncertainty towards what the implementor. Based on this reformulation I have the impression you want to make the implementation optional if the expected EST-coaps request size is less than what the IP MTU can send without fragmentation. However, that leads me to ask what is the behavior of a node that suddenly are faced with a request that is larger. Refuse to send it with an error or still rely on IP fragmentation? There is always the potential for a request being to large unless implementation support of block1 is mandated. Cheers Magnus Westerlund ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Networks, Ericsson Research ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Torshamnsgatan 23 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email protected] ----------------------------------------------------------------------
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
