IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [NSIS] AD Review comments on draft-ietf-nsis-req-07.txt

"Geib, Ruediger" <Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com> Mon, 16 June 2003 09:05 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA05906 for <nsis-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:05:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h5G94ZB16978 for nsis-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 05:04:35 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G7l2a12118; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 03:47:02 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5G7kpm12105 for <nsis@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 03:46:51 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA04609 for <nsis@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 03:46:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RofL-0000W3-00 for nsis@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 03:44:35 -0400
Received: from mail5.telekom.de ([62.225.183.202] helo=mail1.telekom.de) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19RofL-0000Vx-00 for nsis@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 03:44:35 -0400
Received: from g8pbr.blf01.telekom.de by G8SBV.dmz.telekom.de with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:46:13 +0200
Received: by G8PBR.blf01.telekom.de with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <NAJFAPKF>; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:46:13 +0200
Message-Id: <9F8582E37B2EE5498E76392AEDDCD3FE03DBB4D0@G8PQD.blf01.telekom.de>
From: "Geib, Ruediger" <Ruediger.Geib@t-systems.com>
To: mankin@psg.com
Cc: nsis@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [NSIS] AD Review comments on draft-ietf-nsis-req-07.txt
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:46:08 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: nsis-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: nsis-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling <nsis.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:nsis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

Hello Allison,

during my design efforts on a new backbone signaling protocol 
I came to the same conclusion as formulated by the requirement 
below. I don't think that it is mobility specific. Please note 
that also RFC 3175 simplifies the state addressing slightly 
(two IP addresses and a DSCP instead of RSVPs 5 tuple). It's 
a general requirement and should be kept unchanged.

Regards, Rudiger

| Allison Mankin writes:
|> 5.4.3 State MUST be addressed independent of flow identification 
| [snip]
|> No request
|> to change this, but just noting how hard this is - WG is _sure_
|> the mobility requirements are really so important?
_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
nsis@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email