RE: [Seamoby] Proposal on Sync/NoSync Requirement

Don't know if we can use NEED Not (certainly fits for the first SHOULD NOT, since
that one sounds like we are advising against it).
How would you allow particular features get synch service, if there is no inbuild
mechanisms in CT?

I think we can talk about synchronization when there are two copies at
two different places. I think the solutions should seriously avoid this,
as we did in our proposal. Care should be taken so that you don't have to 
update a context at both oldAR and newAR. I think as you said for header compression
context, you should have the context updated only at one location and when
it is only at one location, how can we call it synchronization?

You would on the other hand get problem with dynamic context, if
some context that you sent over, gets lost or corrupted. Once this happen
then, you can see whether the context has changed (in which case you need a refresh)
or not (you only need a retx).

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf@docomolabs-usa.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 1:59 PM
To: seamoby@ietf.org
Subject: [Seamoby] Proposal on Sync/NoSync Requirement

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.

Comments?

            jak

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

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