Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03625 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:14:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA27672; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:09:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA27631 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:09:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcars04f.ca.nortel.com (zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com [47.129.242.57]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA03152 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:08:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from zcard015.ca.nortel.com (zcard015.ca.nortel.com [47.129.30.7]) by zcars04f.ca.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id g6AE8UB20511; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:08:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by zcard015.ca.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:08:29 -0400 Message-ID: <9FBD322B7824D511B36900508BF93C9C01AA4BFD@zcard031.ca.nortel.com> From: "Gary Kenward" To: "'James Kempf'" , seamoby@ietf.org Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:08:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2281B.4344D92E" Sender: seamoby-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: seamoby-admin@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Context Transfer, Handoff Candidate Discovery, and Dormant Mode Host Alerting X-BeenThere: seamoby@ietf.org This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2281B.4344D92E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Main Entry: mean=B7ing=20 Pronunciation: 'mE-ni[ng] Function: noun 4 a : the logical connotation of a word or phrase=20 ------------ I propose, for section 5.5.2, to replace "meaning" with=20 "original syntax and semantics", unless someone has a better idea. Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf@docomolabs-usa.com] > Sent: July 9, 2002 16:56 > To: Kenward, Gary [WDLN2:AN10:EXCH]; seamoby@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG >=20 >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "Gary Kenward" > To: "'James Kempf'" ; > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 12:50 PM > Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG >=20 >=20 > > James: > >=20 > > Sorry, but a small clarification: I did not say that=20 > dynamic context=20 > > was rejected, I said that I recalled that there was, at one time, a > > requirement > > that attempted to directly address dynamic context and the=20 > need to update it > >=20 > > and that requirement was eventually removed. I think the=20 > reason was the > > difficulty > > in defining "dynamic" versus "static" context, as Charlie=20 > outlines in his > > response. > >=20 > > There is, however, a requirement, 5.5, that speaks to=20 > context updates in > > general: > >=20 > > 5.5 Context Update and Synchronization > >=20 > > 5.5.1 The context transfer protocol MUST be capable of updating=20 > > context information when it changes. > >=20 > > 5.5.2 A context update MUST preserve the integrity, and thus the > > meaning, of the context at each receiving AR. > >=20 > > The context at the AR actually supporting an MN's traffic will > > change with time. For example, the MN may initiate new=20 > microflow(s), > > or discontinue existing microflows. Any change of context at the > > supporting AR must be replicated at those ARs that have already > > received context for that MN. > >=20 > > I am now wondering why this requirement did not answer the=20 > IESGs concerns? > > Possibly because it does not explicitly mention "dynamic context" = or > > "dynamic > > updates"?=20 > >=20 >=20 > I suspect that is it. What is "meaning"?=20 >=20 > jak=20 >=20 >=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2281B.4344D92E Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments from IESG

Main Entry: mean=B7ing
Pronunciation: 'mE-ni[ng]
Function: noun

4 a : the logical connotation of a word or phrase =

------------

I propose, for section 5.5.2, to replace = "meaning" with
"original syntax and semantics", unless = someone has a better
idea.

Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf@docomolabs-usa.com= ]
> Sent: July 9, 2002 16:56
> To: Kenward, Gary [WDLN2:AN10:EXCH]; = seamoby@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments = from IESG
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Kenward" = <gkenward@nortelnetworks.com>
> To: "'James Kempf'" = <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>; <seamoby@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 12:50 PM
> Subject: RE: [Seamoby] CT Requirements Comments = from IESG
>
>
> > James:
> >
> >   Sorry, but a small = clarification: I did not say that
> dynamic context
> > was rejected, I said that I recalled that = there was, at one time, a
> > requirement
> > that attempted to directly address dynamic = context and the
> need to update it
> >
> > and that requirement was eventually = removed. I think the
> reason was the
> > difficulty
> > in defining "dynamic" versus = "static" context, as Charlie
> outlines in his
> > response.
> >
> >   There is, however, a = requirement, 5.5, that speaks to
> context updates in
> > general:
> >
> > 5.5 Context Update and = Synchronization
> >
> > 5.5.1 The context transfer protocol MUST = be capable of updating
> >       = context information when it changes.
> >
> > 5.5.2 A context update MUST preserve the = integrity, and thus the
> >       = meaning, of the context at each receiving AR.
> >
> >    The context at the AR = actually supporting an MN's traffic will
> >    change with time. For = example, the MN may initiate new
> microflow(s),
> >    or discontinue existing = microflows. Any change of context at the
> >    supporting AR must be = replicated at those ARs that have already
> >    received context for = that MN.
> >
> > I am now wondering why this requirement = did not answer the
> IESGs concerns?
> > Possibly because it does not explicitly = mention "dynamic context" or
> > "dynamic
> > updates"?
> >
>
> I suspect that is it. What is = "meaning"?
>
>          = ;   jak
>
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2281B.4344D92E-- _______________________________________________ Seamoby mailing list Seamoby@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby