RE: RDDP status of drafts

Concur that removal is fine at this time.  If there is demonstrated need at 
later date, then an update can be generated.

Mike



At 09:38 AM 3/2/2004 -0800, Sukanta Ganguly wrote:
>Caitlin,
>    Even though for the consensus I will say that it is OK to remove the
>TCP SCTP adaptation for the Active-Active requirements, I still think it
>is worth the effort to probably have a separate effort in defining those
>elements for Active-Active model and also a mix of an active-active and
>an active-passive for a good failover solution that can be coined in
>this area.
>    The more I think about the more it makes sense to have some sort of a
>standardization in this area for a "near-zero packet loss architecture"
>to be defined under this arena. This may become a generic mechanism so
>that can it can applied to a non-rdma space too.
>
>Thanks
>SG
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Caitlin Bestler [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 8:46 AM
>To: [email protected]
>Cc: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [rddp] RDDP status of drafts
>
>
>On Mar 2, 2004, at 2:12 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > -- SCTP Mapping
> >
> > draft-ietf-rddp-sctp-00.txt
> >
> > To become a Proposed Standard RFC.
> >
> > Despite the -00 version number, this is the fourth version of this
> > draft,
> > and it is relatively mature.
>
>Earlier I raised the question as to whether the TCP and
>SCTP adaptations should be brought into alignment on
>support for Active-Active session initiation.
>
>I believe the consensus from reflector discussion was that
>it was not worthwhile to add this functionality to MPA/TCP.
>
>I suggest a quick poll at the WG meeting and/or reflector as
>to whether the Active-Active support should be removed from
>the SCTP mapping. As that legal sessions are defined by an
>enumeration of legal patterns, removing one is a very simple
>edit should that be the consensus.
>
>I personally remain ambivalent on the issue, seeing both the
>merits of flexibility and of eliminating test cases.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rddp mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
>
>_______________________________________________
>rddp mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp