Hi Geoff,
> Thanks indeed for your careful review of this document. I've responded
> inline to your questions, but in general I agree with the suggestions here
Just responding to one open point here:
> >2) 1st line, page 8:
> >
> > "In addition to this objective of session resilience across network
> > reachability changes," ...
> >
> > I had a hard time parsing this at first, perhaps the
coffee didn't
> > kick in. Is it:
> >
> > "In addition to this objective of session resilience across network
> > reachability changes," ...
> >
> > or
> >
> > "In addition to this objective of session resilience during network
> > reachability changes," ...
> >
> > or
> >
> > "In addition to this objective of session resilience in spite of
network
> > reachability changes," ...
>
>
> I think its the third. But it needs clarification in any case. What is
> going through my head as I read your comments is the distinction between
> session resilience DURING the period of routing instability while the
> routing system reaches a new converged state as distinct to the objective
> of session surviveability BEFORE and AFTER a routing change. I do not
think
> it is possible to undertake the former (DURING) given that there is no
> reliable stable routing state during routing churn, so I did mean BEFORE
> and AFTER.
I think our goal here is that a session SHOULD survive (TCP connections don't
break) but it might not be possible in all cases. I'll let you wordsmith,
however.