From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Date: den 18 januari 2005 09.58.52 MET
To: <shim6@psg.com> <shim6@psg.com> <shim6@psg.com>
Subject: Re: multi6-functional-dec and re-homing
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2005-01-17, at 13.52, <john.loughney@nokia.com> wrote:
Could I suggest a change to the current charter:
From:
MAY 05 First draft of architectural and protocol document
MAY 05 First draft on cryptographic locators, if required
MAY 05 First draft on state managment
To:
MAY 05 First draft of architectural and protocol document
MAY 05 First draft on cryptographic locators, if required
MAY 05 First draft on failure & rehoming event description
This is, of course, not considering the discussion we have had about
the
potential need for a seperate architecture draft.
Anyhow, State management to me, means the internal protocol state,
and
message processing rules, etc. For example, I think
draft-arkko-multi6dt-failure-detection-00.txt might cover some of
what
I'm thinking about. I also wonder if any of the work in DNA could
also be referenced here. I'm definately interested in contributing
on this topic.
so having thought a bit on this, and started working on an updated
version of the charter. I originally put in the state machine document
to have the entire document set somewhat more "modular", but also
because I thought that making an conscious effort to try and develop
the statemachine. After reading the mails here, Johns mail on the
"interaction" with transport made me think that having these as to
separate documents probably is a good idea - as we might want to
change
state interaction with transport without changing protocol elements.
As for the proposal above to change the name, isn't failure and
rehoming also somewhat misleading as sate is also establishment and
disconnect (I guess also somewhat along what Marcelo pointed to)?