Re: [Seamoby] Proposal on Sync/NoSync Requirement

John,

"Out of scope" is typically WG charter language. I know the SHOULD/SHOULD NOT sounds a bit funny, but I think we need to
express this in a way that is more requirements language.

        jak

----- Original Message -----
From: <john.loughney@nokia.com>
To: <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>; <seamoby@ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 4:05 AM
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Proposal on Sync/NoSync Requirement

> Hi James,
>
> > So based on the list discussion so far, I'd like to put out
> > the following proposal for a requirement on synchronization or
> > its lack:
> >
> > 5.5.1 The CT solution SHOULD NOT provide direct support for
> > synchronization of context. However, the CT solution SHOULD allow
> > particular feature contexts that require synchronization to
> > provide that support.
> >
> >   Most feature contexts will not require synchronization, however there are a
> >   few that may. Header compression, for example, may require that the header
> >   compressor on the old access router cease and the compressor on the new
> >   router start in synchrony with hand over of routing to the new router;
> >   otherwise, the compressor on the new router will not be properly synchronized.
> >   Since most contexts don't need synchronization support, the CT solution need
> >   not support it, but it should not provide a hinderance to those feature contexts
> >   that do.
>
> I would rather like it stated that Context Synchronization is out of
> scope for this work.  However, we should note that many contexts
> don't require it, but some might.
>
> John
>

_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
Seamoby@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby