Re: Last Call for draft-ietf-rolc-apr-00.txt

[Yakov Rekhter <[e-mail]>]

Curtis,

> > I have no problems of describing the decoupling the "local/remote"
> > outcome from the addressing information as "an extension" (or probably
> > "evolution").
> 
> IMO Declaring a "new IP architecture" is generally a bad thing to do
> unless that is closer to what you are doing.  This is a minor
> extension.

Ok. I'll change the text to describe the change as "a minor extension".

> Another key point (from the off list exchange):
> 
> A new term was needed for "a specific subset of the internetwork
> topology in which the underlying network does not prevent all hosts or
> routers from being directly reachable without IP forwarding to an
> intermediate party".  This has nothing to do with addressing and any
> overlap with an address prefix, whether intentional or coincidental,
> does not define the region.  The term "address prefix region" is
> absolutely the wrong term.  The old terms commonly used were "NBMA
> network" or "subnet in the OSI sense".  You need to pick a term that
> clearly reflects what you are describing.
> 
> You are proposing to decouple addressing and then defining a term that
> couples "aka NBMA network" with an address prefix.  Fix the ommision
> of hop-by-hop QoS and one hop off the NBMA procedures and get rid of
> the coupling with address prefix entirely and I'll wholeheartedly
> support the draft.

I'll certainly include the reference to the hop-by-hop QoS. Likewise, I'll
add "one hop off the NBMA procedures".  However, the address prefix has to
be retained, as it provides coupling between hosts and routers on the NBMA
network (a router on the NBMA network may act as a last hop for only a subset 
of all the hosts connected to the NBMA network). 

Yakov.