Jari Arkko wrote:
> >The design document also uses the word "path" in senses that
> >don't include the route taken by the packets (see e.g. the
> >definition for "primary path").
>
> My feeling is that, for practical reasons, we should try to
> get rid of the term path, unless we use it in the route-included
> sense. There are too many people that will complain when
> they will see their favorite term misused :-)
Well, it certainly seems so...
I've now changed those instances of "path" that don't really
consider the route to something else (but I've kept expressions
like "paths that contain NATs", "off-path", or "currently used
path has stopped working", which are more about the route
than just a pair of addresses). CHANGE_PATH notification was
renamed to UPDATE_SA_ADDRESSES.
Once I get -01 out, let's see if this is better than -00...
Best regards,
Pasi
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.