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 

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