Re: New version of charter text

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

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


On 2005-01-26, at 17.26, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>>>
>>> what about a new shim API? I mean a new API that allows the apps to 
>>> communicate with the shim and inform about failures or other stuff, 
>>> would this be within scope?
>> Well, I added the transport layer "hints" as proposed by Erik, 
>> perhaps we should rewrite this into simply "shim layer API" ?
>
> I'm not sure we should commit to an API. We might well want to
> specify it conceptually, i.e. a bit more than hints, but
> not really get into the API deinition game, which the IETF
> usually leaves to others.

I used the word signalling in the new version. Not sure if that is 
"conceptual" enough?

>>> Don't we need to include the additional items that are mentioned 
>>> above as milestones also, such as: ingress filtering solution, 
>>> mechanism for establishing new communications with legacy hosts, TE 
>>> capabilities description?
>> TE, and perhaps ingress filtering I envisioned in the applicability 
>> document. The new communication establishment I envisioned to be 
>> addressed in the multihoming event trigger document (but come to 
>> think about it, this perhaps should be somewhere else).
>
> It might be separate. But we could decide that later.

So we leave it as it is? Or should we explicitly describe the 
applicability document?

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.1

iQA/AwUBQfivr6arNKXTPFCVEQKi8gCg4RLMV+lzhpwGmkqoFmz4lewBNRgAoMVS
FIXeDVLaBOx2lnn/xtbdhKFJ
=ne3i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----