RE: Minutes / Notes

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

Harold,

The problem is that we get to pick one.  We're making a fundamental
change to the way the Internet works here.  There can't be two
different architectures...

Tony


|    -----Original Message-----
|    From: Grovesteen, Harold [mailto:Grovesteen@aafes.com] 
|    Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 9:03 AM
|    To: Brian E Carpenter; Tony Li
|    Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
|    Subject: RE: Minutes / Notes
|    
|    
|    Please understand that there is a middle ground between 
|    EDI financial based transactions and checking out a 
|    recreational web site.  Enterprises which depend upon 
|    user's browsing to generate revenue fit in this middle 
|    ground.  It may be casual browsing on the part of the 
|    customer, but there is nothing casual about the 
|    enterprise's approach to reliability to maximize that 
|    revenue stream.  When millions of dollars or yen or pounds 
|    are at risk, even short disruptions and any broken 
|    connections with those casual users represent lost revenue.
|    
|    I had wanted to stay out of this discussion, but I had not 
|    anticipated the results of my simple affirmation that TCP 
|    connection survival is a good thing and I representing an 
|    Enterprise am glad this is still a "should" and "on the 
|    table."  I do not even have any issue that some solutions 
|    provide this and others do not.  I can select a solution 
|    that does and support my organization as needed--provided 
|    it is not incompatible with the other solutions.
|    
|    Harold Grovesteen
|    
|    -----Original Message-----
|    From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@hursley.ibm.com]
|    Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 3:25 AM
|    To: Tony Li
|    Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
|    Subject: Re: Minutes / Notes
|    
|    
|    Tony,
|    
|    Yes, but you can't use the same argument for casual web browsing.
|    
|    BTW, this is why commercial message queueing systems exist; they
|    can bridge reliable transactions over significant disconnects.
|    
|       Brian
|    
|    Tony Li wrote:
|    > 
|    > Brian,
|    > 
|    > If we do not fix this, then we can just close up shop 
|    and go home,
|    > because the business world is NOT going to accept a solution that
|    > doesn't fulfill this.  They would rather use IPv4 and PI 
|    addresses.
|    > 
|    > Tony
|    > 
|    > |    -----Original Message-----
|    > |    From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@hursley.ibm.com]
|    > |    Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 12:58 AM
|    > |    To: multi6@ops.ietf.org
|    > |    Subject: Re: Minutes / Notes
|    > |
|    > |
|    > |    Well, this is one of the many "shoulds" in our agreed list
|    > |    of goals. Whether we can achieve this "should" 
|    simultaneously
|    > |    with enough of the others is very much an open question
|    > |    in my mind, and it's one of the reasons why we may end up
|    > |    with more than one solution. In some scenarios, this may
|    > |    be a dominant goal; in other scenarios, it may be 
|    unimportant.
|    > |
|    > |      Brian
|    > |
|    > |    "Grovesteen, Harold" wrote:
|    > |    >
|    > |    > YES!
|    > |    >
|    > |    > -----Original Message-----
|    > |    > From: Tony Li [mailto:Tony.Li@procket.com]
|    > |    > Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:38 PM
|    > |    > To: J. Noel Chiappa; multi6@ops.ietf.org
|    > |    > Subject: RE: Fwd: Minutes / Notes
|    > |    >
|    > |    > Noel,
|    > |    >
|    > |    > |    This is only important if you want TCP 
|    connections to be
|    > |    > |    able to survive
|    > |    > |    having an incoming link fail (i.e. the address on the
|    > |    > |    local end becomes
|    > |    > |    unreachable to the rest of the network). 
|    This may not be
|    > |    > |    an important goal
|    > |    > |    (e.g. the typical web site wouldn't care).
|    > |    >
|    > |    > I believe that the WG has come to rough consensus 
|    that this is,
|    > |    > in fact, an important goal for us to solve.  There are
|    > |    > numerous practical applications that drive this.  
|    More generally,
|    > |    > we (IETF, vendors) are being asked to make the 
|    Internet safe
|    > |    > for "mission critical" applications and having broken TCP
|    > |    > connections is simply unacceptable.  Many 
|    applications today
|    > |    > are being outsourced: backups, storage, business 
|    applications,
|    > |    > interactions within an 'extra-net', etc.
|    > |    >
|    > |    > Tony
|    
|