Re: Draft of updated WG charter

[vijay gill <vgill@vijaygill.com>]

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:34:12PM +0000, vijay gill wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:10:44AM -0800, Tony Li wrote:

> > Frankly, I think it would be quite challenging to provide session
> > migration
> > without some end-host modifications....
> 
> 
> Tony, 
> 
>   color me pessimistic  but talking with my friends in the
>   IT world, I firmly believe that most hosts have connectivity
>   despite, not because of most IT depts.

Following up on my own post. I did come across sounding too
pessimistic.  Let me rephrase: I believe that solutions based on
host update mechanisms should spend substantial amounts of time
making sure that the update mechanism support is easy to get right
and rely on minimal amounts of state required to make
session modification etc.

Having worked IT before, debugging someone's desktop connectivity
from a call centre located in a different state/country will be a
significant cost to the department. Translation: do not expect
to be able to deliver O(current DFZ table size) updates to the 
host and have that solution deployed.

/vijay