aha - thanks for clearing this up. I'm comfortable with "important work TBD" Geoff At 03:53 PM 25/10/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Geoff, I agree with you on that. I'm not asking for an easy answer, but more for a recognition in the base spec that this is important work TBD. Brian Geoff Huston wrote:I am not convinced about this - TE is a really complex issue here and I'm not sure that this initial base spec is capable of addressing the larger issues of TE in the SHIM6 context. There are a massive set of signalling issues that need to cover the differences between "sites" and "hosts" and "site TE policies" and "host locator preferences". I'd rather not make arbitrary claims that are not covered in this base functionality spacification. That does not say "lets ignore TE", but is _does_ say that TE is a tough problem and requires further consideration than will be found in this base specification.regards Geoff (co-chair hat removed) At 01:25 AM 25/10/2005, Erik Nordmark wrote:Brian E Carpenter wrote:6.1 Conceptual Data Structures The key conceptual data structure for the shim6 protocol is the host pair context. This is a data structures which contains the following information: o The peer ULID; ULID(peer) o The local ULID; ULID(local) o The list of peer locators, with their preferences; Ls(peer) There's quite a lot in the draft about how preferences are communicated and very little about where they come from. draft-ietf-shim6-arch-00.txt doesn't help with this either. Somewhere, I think we need a list of possible sources of these preferences, and dynamic or static TE policy needs to be in that list.I see I didn't add this in the -02 document (which I submitted today) but I agree that we should add some text to the next rev. of the proto document.Erik