RE: Draft progress & schedule

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of [email protected]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:54 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [rddp] Draft progress & schedule
> 
> A couple of updates from your WG chair:
> 
> (1) I believe that the text changes needed to clear the
> 	final IESG issues on the RDDP architecture draft
> 	are understood, and I've asked the draft editor to
> 	produce a new version.  Both issues were minor:
> 	- When using a multi-destination transport like SCTP,
> 		the effect of a transfer via an stags can't
> 		depend on which IP address receives the packets.
> 		If this can't be accomplished, don't use RDDP.

That could certainly be added, but it is already the logical
Conclusion of the specification.  The DDP layer only knows that
DDP Segments have been delivered reliably according to the ordering
rules. Having the behavior depend on which IP Address was used would
be just as incorrect as having it depend on the Ethernet MAC address.
 
--
Caitlin Bestler
Director Software Architecture
Siliquent Technologies
[email protected]