Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation

Dae Young KIM <dykim@cnu.kr> Tue, 04 December 2012 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dykim6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA32F21F8BD9 for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:02:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DICKDl5QvQ6O for <rrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:02:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-f182.google.com (mail-qc0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3270421F871F for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:02:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id k19so3050113qcs.13 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 15:02:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=ur6JzRHbzrKP8AxQO8SoDwpmGiD9P7JG3JUKsENz8pw=; b=fx4E+TcYrQiVz+16dIuB6aZCaMhjqw32Zap1PoSZj0echv3eVgTTrmBnvz53HdVUfl M041iizFncxdatuCnhSavMcRP4IE+5bvG0rEcbm2aU5xwlWXtllrnPfiZtm5cXRMNiOJ lnfJ590Y9aP+ZdYn3iNNDMsiATqWdaSHrzkDola5IPAwuMMWGo1104lqtYPjUspar5Wv F+pfAg048Q69czyIVY2zzICctZclMM14WBob6aVWKBxl3L5DsbEI1Y3ni9ffCvr2GYpK TGtaQ2g15F8rMn68gF2pLq1pcjpM+LTjMJDtgLtA+eM6nhXToHTUYVCGIbr12+Qs3obU QW6w==
Received: by 10.49.121.40 with SMTP id lh8mr28698967qeb.30.1354662177626; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 15:02:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: dykim6@gmail.com
Received: by 10.49.12.9 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:02:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <50BE406C.3020205@internet2.edu>
References: <20121112234012.05F8E18C0CA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <CAFgODJcP1zvwRJukJdnqjSR-78XAMB1nSxL32gjUQB+NqpgESg@mail.gmail.com> <50A18F75.8060001@joelhalpern.com> <CAFgODJcDAzaYPrWFEJhgeCjnN_M9tdd+pdHTiccd=Dz=1mYrLg@mail.gmail.com> <EC8FD781-E416-4AE6-BA99-F74FE2DDA14D@tony.li> <CAFgODJfMBJBxNJ_M1_L=K0f2DpbZvzOBUgLZ6sT+-y+JevGeSg@mail.gmail.com> <27E72BC2-C84D-469F-9667-7A749567B477@tony.li> <CAFgODJfBX0R90oiYnxWrgC1oyr5ZPTZJA23WWu=Dbqu=xmyYTQ@mail.gmail.com> <EA48576E-4953-4408-982F-9D48497F8975@tony.li> <CAFgODJeae5EwSr8aC4b3tGBMxKPZRcfKarUuuwmA1LZKjge6ng@mail.gmail.com> <E613F100-93DE-4AB3-B71D-7250EB6D57BF@tony.li> <CAFgODJcXaCX9th9nkogLhkJu7pQE3=-Yc7DWkGNgX15Rh1UQ8g@mail.gmail.com> <957297EA-FFF8-408A-A181-E57028C9B8E1@tony.li> <CAFgODJfMZZioTNXOsST42kTP_BT4-RsjR_ysQTnZLG5pjoBEdg@mail.gmail.com> <50A2D6BC.602@joelhalpern.com> <CAFgODJfH6U9t17SW5XLSy5nbA380hQZkh7snway-XyiB9MQcNQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFgODJfRxPqmArKMjgoegD+kYFqhvPGncZiX6jvZgYBRVDnHeg@mail.gmail.com> <50BE406C.3020205@internet2.edu>
From: Dae Young KIM <dykim@cnu.kr>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 08:02:37 +0900
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2p3951A28ILfdwylRt--m4w6zZs
Message-ID: <CAFgODJd2eAqN8=+fWLS4HGt0hG1EbVtdDTNVrwYCyLG9hfwS4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc1be4e35abe04d00edd27
Cc: rrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [rrg] RRG to hibernation
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 23:02:58 -0000

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:26 AM, Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu>; wrote:

> On 11/13/12 20:17, Dae Young KIM allegedly wrote:
> > OK, Shim6 is not an LIS. But, the shim is between L3 and L4 while a
> > session shim would be between L4 and APP.
>
> Usually that's handled in libraries used by apps.  We don't use X.200
> layering much.
>

Yes, session should be part of implementation issues.

Still, one would wish for a clearly declared session concept within the
TCP/IP suite, so that it is not done ad hac from one application to another
but is provided as a default interface visible to all APPs.



-- 
DY