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