RE: WGLC comments on draft-ietf-multi6-architecture-02.txt

At 09:31 PM 3/11/2004, [email protected] wrote:
>Hi Geoff,
>
> > Thanks indeed for your careful review of this document. I've responded
> > inline to your questions, but in general I agree with the suggestions here
>
>Just responding to one open point here:
>
> > >2) 1st line, page 8:
> > >
> > >    "In addition to this objective of session resilience across network
> > >    reachability changes," ...
> > >
> > >         I had a hard time parsing this at first, perhaps the 
> coffee  didn't
> > >         kick in.  Is it:
> > >
> > >    "In addition to this objective of session resilience across network
> > >    reachability changes," ...
> > >
> > >         or
> > >
> > >    "In addition to this objective of session resilience during network
> > >    reachability changes," ...
> > >
> > >         or
> > >
> > >    "In addition to this objective of session resilience in spite of 
> network
> > >    reachability changes," ...
> >
> >
> > I think its the third. But it needs clarification in any case. What is
> > going through my head as I read your comments is the distinction between
> > session resilience DURING the period of routing instability while the
> > routing system reaches a new converged state as distinct to the objective
> > of session surviveability BEFORE and AFTER a routing change. I do not 
> think
> > it is possible to undertake the former (DURING) given that there is no
> > reliable stable routing state during routing churn, so I did mean BEFORE
> > and AFTER.
>
>I think our goal here is that a session SHOULD survive (TCP connections don't
>break) but it might not be possible in all cases.  I'll let you wordsmith,
>however.


thanks - I'll work on this

   Geoff