Re: MPA startup sequence issues (1) and (2)

"Talpey, Thomas" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.rddp
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Okay, I'll bite! :-)

Both the proposed behaviors are appropriate and the spec
should retain them. There is no present motivation which
warrants the added complexity they would entail.

Tom.

At 12:16 PM 3/24/2004, [email protected] wrote:
>This is the first of several emails whose goal is to achieve
>mailing list consensus on issues discussed in Seoul.  This
>email covers issues (1) and (2), which concern permissible
>startup sequences for MPA.  The Seoul minutes say:
>
>  (1) Fast FPDU return (responder need not wait for first pdu). 
>  Tentative proposal: leave as-is (responder must wait). 
>  No dissension in room.  This is not needed for client/server,
>  as the server expects to wait for the client.  Need to take
>  proposal to the list. 
>
>  (2) Active/Active startup. Tentative proposal: leave as-is (no 
>  support for active/active). No dissension in room.  Note, no 
>  known applications require it.  Need to take proposal to the list.
>
>For both of these issues, the rationale for not supporting
>the expanded functionality (Fast FPDU return, Active/Active
>startup) centers around practical issues for dual-stack
>implementations.  draft-culley-mpa-issueresponses-00.txt
>contains an extensive discussion of these implementations,
>why they're of interest, and the difficulties that these
>two features pose to that class of implementation, which
>the WG clearly considers to be important.
>
>In other words, this is a "what is reasonable to build
>in practice" engineering rationale, as opposed to a "what
>is possible in principle" design rationale, which is a good
>way to go about making decisions in the IETF.  For the
>purpose of starting discussion, since Caitlin Bestler is
>the only person I can recall strongly advocating these
>two features, I believe that there is rough consensus
>not to support them (and hence also not to support them
>in the SCTP mapping for consistency).
>
>Not supporting these features means senders MUST NOT
>attempt them, and they are an error case at the receiver
>if they occur.
>
>For further discussion ...
>
>Thanks,
>--David
>----------------------------------------------------
>David L. Black, Senior Technologist
>EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
>+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
>[email protected]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>rddp mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rddp
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.