Re: Preserving established communications (was RE: about draft-nordmark-multi6-noid-00)

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On tisdag, okt 28, 2003, at 12:39 Europe/Stockholm, marcelo bagnulo 
wrote:

> About the transport survivability:
>
>> Perhaps the transport survivability statement in the goals
>> document is a bitoff the mark.
>>
>
> Well, i don't know. It is the closest to a consensus that we could get 
> in
> those issues.
> We could reconsider it, i guess. But imho we should agree on what we 
> are
> looking for.
>
> But what i really think is that we should be aware of the capabilities 
> and
> limitations of the solutions. We should not believe that we are making 
> a big
> effort to provide established communications survivability when what we
> actually are providing is a limited solution that will only preserve 
> some
> communications but not the general case.
>
> IMO, we should try to satisfy this requirement, or at least provide 
> some
> tools to allow to achieve this functionality, even if additional 
> mechanisms
> are required to do it.

Isn't this simply expectation management? The reason we changed the 
requirements into goals was because the items in the document where 
either contradictory; we realized that we couldn't get it all so make 
it all requirements wasn't an option; and we couldn't decide on what 
issues where needed more than others; ?

I think that connection survivability is a nice to have, but wether a 
connection will survive or not will also be highly dependent on the ULP 
as Erik points out. I think this is best handled by simply documenting 
what this solution offers, and what the alternatives for the ULPs are.

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBP5+Kz6arNKXTPFCVEQIaxwCbB5ewA/4zu16tdtI2mnJ+ulmIIGAAoM2h
rTRBa0ZhVpaNvQlmfglBMmol
=jevU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----