IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [HOKEY] WGLC on draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design

Zhen Cao <zehn.cao@gmail.com> Sun, 09 October 2011 02:46 UTC

Return-Path: <zehn.cao@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: hokey@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hokey@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5470C21F8B80 for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WeWSYasXcFth for <hokey@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF4821F8BB8 for <hokey@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iaby26 with SMTP id y26so7190295iab.31 for <hokey@ietf.org>; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 19:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=C0KblD7TZhbn0VD1PemltPd9MbyPG5YWh8UibFapEV8=; b=iyVfiZ+mvA/eaKDuK9ImkHzLlP7E0ut+bkBHyoB/rdzN2hOW0w8Q6cMMo60kV0jT1b QTlt8UWZXwARI1mbKVPX35Jp6kOk1cdX1grZbA+y0PywphJU2eaAeEgyK3e0inRu7G9D VhJXmywlmx8LWjMpMRi76iOHBPCRtkLkcvFvE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.123.212 with SMTP id t20mr6848112icr.12.1318128388562; Sat, 08 Oct 2011 19:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.43.52.196 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2DFC486C8ECD4C36A9CC601C6F60FC0C@china.huawei.com>
References: <4E3A81CB.3070106@net-zen.net> <CAProHARuiSdSuNfDf3JWKPOkLxdvQLL2E-RKrbO_YKgjnfaAow@mail.gmail.com> <4E5F7109.6040907@gmail.com> <A7F85312C4F3414192BA49C44F61DD3F@china.huawei.com> <4E8ACB9C.90803@gmail.com> <2DFC486C8ECD4C36A9CC601C6F60FC0C@china.huawei.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 10:46:28 +0800
Message-ID: <CAProHAT=y7Dc28C8uc5xxtURk4h3wgV-TAA7rp_ps3B+wD8H9w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zhen Cao <zehn.cao@gmail.com>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: hokey@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [HOKEY] WGLC on draft-ietf-hokey-arch-design
X-BeenThere: hokey@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: HOKEY WG Mailing List <hokey.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hokey>, <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hokey>
List-Post: <mailto:hokey@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey>, <mailto:hokey-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 02:46:29 -0000

>>
>>>>> Suggest to merge section 3.1.2 into section
>>>>> 3.1.1 or just delete the section 3.1.2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Section 6:
>>>>> [Z]:In Quebec meeting, the case where multiple servers are located in
>>>>> the same domain has been
>>>>> well discussed. I am thinking if this case should be taken into
>>>>> account in this section or leave
>>>>> this case out of scope of hokey architecture?
>>>>
>>>> I was going to suggest putting it into the AAA considerations section
>>>> but their doesn't seem to be one ;-).
>>>
>>> [Qin]: I thought multiple servers cases is relevant to ERP and should be
>>> discussed in RFC5296bis document. It is not good to discuss the same issue
>>> in both two documents. Am I wrong?
>>
>> It's not good if the two discussions are different ;-), but if they are
>> substantially the same, I think it's OK.
>
> [Qin]: Agree.

+1


-- 
Best regards,
Zhen

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email