RE: [Trigtran] TRIGTRAN Justification

OK, I think we've talked this through. My suggestion is that 
the next couple of weeks, we focus on what additional things 
a transport would want to know, that transports don't get told
explicitly today.

Spencer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kacheong Poon [mailto:poon@cs.wisc.edu]
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 3:13 PM
> To: Spencer Dawkins; trigtran@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Trigtran] TRIGTRAN Justification
> 
> 
> Included message from "Spencer Dawkins" <sdawkins@cynetanetworks.com>:
> 
> >----
> >What I'm getting from your e-mails is that we're 
> >missing a possible path forward.
> >
> >I've been looking at only two choices:
> >
> >- implicit end-to-end signaling, and 
> >- explicit triggers
> >
> >If I'm getting your point (please let me know if not), 
> >you're thinking of a third choice,
> >
> >- explicit end-to-end signaling
> >
> >Would you see this as part of TCP, 
> >or a completely different mechanism?
> >----
> 
> Yes, I think it is another choice that should be evaluated
> before deciding which notification mechanism is the best
> one to spend effort on.
> 
> 							K. Poon.
> 
_______________________________________________
Trigtran mailing list
Trigtran@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trigtran